One-To-One Technology and Student Achievement: A Causal-Comparative Study

Submitted by

Kevin Alan Conant

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctorate of Education

Grand Canyon University

Phoenix, Arizona

October 12, 2016

 ProQuest Number: 10239858

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10239858

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2016 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© by Kevin Alan Conant, 2016

All rights reserved.

 Abstract

Student achievement has acted as the metric for school accountability and transparency.

Administrators are becoming more innovative as they examine methods that will increase

student achievement. However, research has shown little achievement gains in student

achievement with regard to technology applications in schools. The theoretical

framework of the digital divide guided this study. The original divide separated those

who had technology and those who did not. The purpose of this study was to examine the

differences in achievement scores between students who participated in a one-to-one

technology program and students who participated in a traditional high school. The data

generated for this study was from the New England Common Assessment Program

(NECAP). This study examined 428 scores in mathematics and 429 scores each in

reading and writing. To determine whether the one-to-one students outperformed the

traditional students in mathematics, reading, and writing, the researcher conducted a t

test. The t test indicated that no statistically significant difference existed between the

achievement scores of the one-to-one students and those of the traditional student.

Keywords: One-to-One technology, technology integration, digital divide

 vi

Dedication

I am dedicating this dissertation to my brother, Lieutenant Colonel Sean Judge,

Ph.D. For those who may be familiar with my family, you know that Sean was my

stepbrother. However, as Sean and I bonded, we eliminated the “step” from our

vernacular because we acted more like brothers. Although Sean was busy working on his

Ph.D., he still found time to assist me on my own journey. He offered words of

encouragement and provided me with an invaluable, nonjudgmental ear.

All of this is but a fraction of the characteristics that made Sean the human being

he was. Sean continued helping me even after he was diagnosed with cancer. Through

chemotherapy and surgery, he maintained the strength to accept my calls and offer me

advice on completing my journey.

Although Sean lost his battle with cancer, he continues to live on in all of the lives

he touched. I only dream that I can be half the man that he was. Sean, my brother, I love

you and miss you daily. You were an inspiration to so many. Thank you for always being

there for me. I love you brother.

 vii

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge many people. I must begin with my family: My dad

Dave and his wife Mary, my mom Patricia, my two brothers Ron and Ed, and my sister

Becky. I must further acknowledge my brother Ron for all he did for me when I was

awarded custody of my two sons: Zach and Tim. He graciously opened his house to them

and never asked for anything in return.

I must also acknowledge the support system my two boys provided me with. They

were two of my greatest proponents. They constantly told me I could complete this and

often told me how proud they were of me. Furthermore, they understood the sacrifices I

had to make in order to complete this journey.

My girlfriend Vicky, whom I affectionately call Belle, was instrumental in my

completion of this journey. She was always there for me. She knew when I needed to be

left alone to work on this dissertation and more importantly, when I needed to put it aside

and go have fun.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of my committee. My Chair,

Dr. Li-Ching Hung was always there for me. She conducted weekly Zoom meetings so

we could all share our progress with one another. My Methodologist, Dr. David Cipra,

ensured that my data analysis plan was thorough. He provided me with the feedback

required to ensure my study was complete. Finally, I must thank my Content Expert, Dr.

Eric Feldborg. Dr. Feldborg provided me with invaluable feedback.

 viii

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii  

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii  

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1  

Introduction....................................................................................................................1  

Background of the Study ...............................................................................................4  

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................6  

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................7  

Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................8  

Advancing Scientific Knowledge ................................................................................10  

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................13  

Rationale for Methodology ..........................................................................................15  

Nature of the Research Design for the Study...............................................................16  

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................17  

Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations ....................................................................18  

Assumptions........................................................................................................18  

Limitations. .........................................................................................................19  

Delimitations.......................................................................................................19  

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ........................................20  

Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................23  

Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem ......................................23  

Theoretical Foundations...............................................................................................26  

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................28  

 ix

School reform......................................................................................................31  

Technology..........................................................................................................39  

Digital divide.......................................................................................................45  

1:1 technology integration. .................................................................................51  

Partnership for 21st century skills.......................................................................55  

Common Core State Standards. ..........................................................................60  

Pedagogy.............................................................................................................62  

Summary. .....................................................................................................................70  

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................73  

Introduction..................................................................................................................73  

Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................73  

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................74  

Research Methodology ................................................................................................76  

Research Design...........................................................................................................77  

Population and Sample Selection.................................................................................80  

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................81  

Validity ........................................................................................................................86  

Reliability.....................................................................................................................88  

Data Collection and Management................................................................................89  

Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................90  

Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................92  

Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................92  

Delimitations................................................................................................................93  

Summary ......................................................................................................................94  
 x

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results................................................................................95  

Introduction..................................................................................................................95  

Descriptive Data...........................................................................................................95  

Mathematics Assessment .............................................................................................96  

Reading Assessment ....................................................................................................99  

Writing Assessment ...................................................................................................101  

Data Analysis Procedures ..........................................................................................103  

Results........................................................................................................................106  

Summary ....................................................................................................................113  

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations............................................115  

Introduction................................................................................................................115  

Summary of the Study ...............................................................................................116  

Summary of Findings and Conclusion.......................................................................118  

Implications................................................................................................................121  

Theoretical implications....................................................................................122  

Practical implications........................................................................................122  

Future implications. ..........................................................................................123  

Recommendations......................................................................................................123  

Recommendations for future research. .............................................................124  

Recommendations for future practice. ..............................................................126  

References........................................................................................................................128  

Appendix A Sample Grade Span Expectations ...............................................................155  

Appendix B IRB Approval Letter....................................................................................156  

Appendix C Informed Consent ........................................................................................157  

 xi

Appendix D NECAP Released Items (Mathematics) ......................................................158  

Appendix E NECAP Released Items (Reading)..............................................................169  

Appendix F NECAP Released Items (Writing) ...............................................................179  

Appendix G Power Analysis............................................................................................183  

 xii

List of Tables

Table 1. Five-Number Summary for Mathematics............................................................ 98  

Table 2. Five-Number Summary for Reading ................................................................. 101  

Table 3. Five-Number Summary for Writing .................................................................. 103  

Table 4. Assessment Mean, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error Mean................. 107  

Table 5.  t test for Equality of Means............................................................................... 108  

Table 6. Effect of Outliers............................................................................................... 109  

Table 7. Effect of Outliers on School B........................................................................... 109  

Table 8. Effect of Outliers on School A........................................................................... 110  

Table 9. Effect of Outliers on School B........................................................................... 110  

 xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1. ADDIE Instructional Design Model – All phases highlighted (Braunschweig,

2014). ................................................................................................................... 64  

Figure 2. The TPACK Image (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by

tpack.org). ............................................................................................................ 69  

Figure 3. Histogram representing the achievement scores for School A.......................... 97  

Figure 4. Histogram representing math scores for School B. ........................................... 98  

Figure 5. Histogram representing School A. .................................................................. 100  

Figure 6. Histogram representing School B.................................................................... 100  

Figure 7. Histogram representing the writing scores from School A. ............................ 101  

Figure 8. Histogram representing the achievement scores for School B........................ 102  

Figure 9. School A Normal Q-Q Plots for mathematics................................................. 111  

Figure 10. School B Normal Q-Q Plots for mathematics. .............................................. 111  

Figure 11. School A Normal Q-Q Plots for reading. ...................................................... 112  

Figure 12. School B Normal Q-Q Plots for reading. ...................................................... 112  

Figure 13. School A Normal Q-Q Plots for writing........................................................ 113  

Figure 14. School B Normal Q-Q Plots for writing........................................................ 113  

 1

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

With the passing of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (2001),

commonly referred to as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a renewed focus began

regarding student achievement. This focus is casting attention on accountability and

transparency. Furthermore, a change occurred regarding the skills required to succeed in

the 21st century. All of these factors are bringing the digital divide back into the

conversation.

With a focus on accountability, as well as transparency, administrators are

experimenting with different approaches in an effort to raise standardized test scores. One

approach is through the implementation of technology into the curriculum. The

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2014) implemented

technology standards for administrators, teachers, and students. Piggybacking on these

standards are the 21st century learning expectations. According to Keengwe, Schnellert,

and Mills (2012), the creation of these 21st century classrooms provided students with

various forms of technology tools to collect data, connect to one another, and connect to

students all over the world.

The role technology should play in academics is debatable. With regard to

mathematics, two opposing forces exist: mathematics educators and research

mathematicians. In the literature, the math wars are the term used to describe the

opposing views (Kuhn & Dempsey, 2011; Ralston, 2003; Ralston, 2004). Mathematics

educators perceive technology as a way of meeting the needs of a diverse classroom.

GeoGebra is an interactive geometry software package that allows the user to manipulate
 2

variables and shapes on a computer screen. Bulut and Bulut (2011) noted the impact

GeoGebra had on mathematical understanding. Furthermore, Bulut and Bulut noted that

with GeoGebra, teachers were able to use multiple representations of mathematical

concepts. These multiple representations provide educators with a means to address the

diverse cultures within the classroom (E. Kim, 2011). As Holland and Holland (2014)

noted, technology is allowing educators to create a personalized education plan for

students.

Mathematicians, however, see the implementation of technology as a hindrance to

an individual’s understanding of the mathematics (Ralston, 2004). Crowe and Ma (2010)

also noted that the use of technology was a hindrance on basic skill development. Kurz

(2011) stated that students are still not learning mathematics, even with the tools

available to them. With all of these conflicting views regarding technology, current

reform movements are driving technology integration (Bennett & Maton, 2010).

Since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), educational leaders are

focusing on improving student achievement and closing the achievement gap. When

states became responsible for setting standards, a student could be proficient in one state

and barely passing in another (Applebee, 2013). Prior to the passing of NCLB, Academic

Yearly Progress (AYP) was based on a school’s overall test results (Taylor et al., 2010).

NCLB now mandates that states report the test results for five subgroups. These

subgroups include all students; students with and without an Individualized Education

Plan (IEP); students with and without socioeconomic disadvantage; males and females;

and students who are and are not receiving Title 1 services. This reporting method forced
 3

school districts to become more innovative in an attempt to improve student achievement

and close the achievement gap.

One approach has been the role technology may play in improving student

achievement and closing the achievement gap. Technology integration has been the focus

of many studies. Donovan, Green, and Hansen’s (2012) study focused on the teacher

education perspective. Penuel (2006) focused on the implementation and effects of one-

to-one technology. Another study, conducted by Keengwe et al. (2011), focused on a

laptop initiative. Crowe and Ma (2010) examined students’ use of calculators and the role

that technology played in learning mathematics. Kurz (2011) examined the

implementation of web-based algebraic tools and how they support mathematical

education. The majority of these studies have focused mainly on only one aspect of

education: mathematics. This study examined the role technology had on student

achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that one-to-one technology

had on student achievement, as measured by the New England Common Assessment

Program (NECAP) tests. One-to-one technology is a technology implementation strategy

that provides each student with his or her own laptop (Penuel, 2006). In some districts,

the students are free to bring the laptops home and use them in all of their courses

(Warschauer & Ames, 2010). An increase in student achievement scores could be one

benefit from implementing a one-to-one technology initiative. Another benefit may be a

reduction in the achievement gap. Finally, districts may see a reduction in the digital

divide.
 4

The remainder of Chapter 1 will address the background for the study, problem

statement, purpose of the study, and research questions and hypotheses. Additionally, this

chapter will describe the studies impact on advancing scientific knowledge, the

significance of the study, rationale for the methodology chosen to complete the study,

and the nature of the research design. Finally, this chapter includes definitions used in the

study, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. The chapter concludes with a summary

and a description of how the remainder of the study is organized.

Background of the Study

With the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and its recent

reauthorization, states are being held accountable for their educational programs. Each

state must now report the results of these assessments disaggregated by the subgroups

identified in NCLB (2001). In addition to these results, schools’ receive each individual

student’s achievement score. This has forced educational leaders to redefine pedagogy. In

today’s academia, educators must be cognizant of each student’s learning style and

provide each student with differentiated instruction. As Keengwe et al. (2012) noted, in

order for teaching to be more affective, teachers need to integrate technology into the

curriculum.

The purpose of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001,

Subpart D of NCLB, is to assist in the implementation of technology initiatives. From

desktop computing, graphing calculators, e-mail, Smartboards, mobile devices, and LCD

projectors, educational technology has taken on several different meanings over the past

few decades. Roberts, Shedd, and Norman (2012) noted that at the rate technology is

changing; educational research will constantly be playing catch up. This study focused on
 5

one-to-one computer technology and the associated software, such as Word, Excel,

PowerPoint, and Computer Algebra Systems (CAS). Teachers and students are using this

technology to facilitate teaching and learning. Penuel (2006) stated that computers in the

classroom promote collaboration. Additionally, this collaboration facilitates learning.

Furthermore, Penuel noted that the graphical displays associated with this technology

could illuminate concepts that were traditionally difficult for students to understand.

Abbitt (2011) noted an increase in student engagement through technology integration.

Facilitating learning is not limited to academia. Lowther, Inan, Ross, and Strahl (2012)

noted the positive impact a one-to-one technology approach had on the students’

achievement of 21st century knowledge and skills. Grindon (2014) provided evidence

that technology use not only increases literacy achievement, it also provides a means for

meeting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (2015).

With inclusive classrooms, diversity is challenging the older pedagogy styles.

Smith (2014) identified a digital divide that was associated with pedagogy. Technogogy

is a term used to describe the transformative use of technology to foster learning

(Musawi, 2011). In order for technology to reform education, pedagogy must change to

align with the technology available to teachers and students. Roberts et al. (2012) stated

that technology integration is a tool, not a separate skill set. However, the Partnership for

21st Century Skills (P21) (2011) has identified computer literacy as a 21st century skill

that all students must understand to be engaged citizens. According to Kassam, Iding, and

Hogenbirk (2013), the technology participation gap will limit an individual’s

participation in the world.

 6

Problem Statement

It was not known if, or to what extent, one-to-one technology integration had on

student achievement scores on the New England Common Assessment Program

(NECAP) tests. Many studies regarding technology integration exist in the classroom.

Some of the researchers focused on the type and frequency of the technology used (Bulut

& Bulut, 2011; Galligan, Loch, McDonald, & Taylor, 2010; Hsu & Sharma, 2006). Other

researchers have focused on the teacher’s comfort level regarding the technology and the

frequency of its classroom usage (Crowe & Ma, 2010; Delen & Bulut, 2011; Donovan et

al., 2012). Still others have examined the correlation between technology use and student

achievement on standardized tests (Delen & Bulut, 2011; House, 2011). A few studies

have examined one-to-one technology integration. Claro, Nussbaum, López, and Díaz

(2013) stated that the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative promised to transform

education. However, Warschauer and Ames (2010) found no increase in student

achievement. The study conducted by Larkin (2012) noted very little increase in student

achievement. Other studies regarding one-to-one have noted an increase in student

engagement (Chang, Liu, & Shen, 2012; Keengwe et al., 2012). The study conducted by

Penuel (2006) did note a positive effect on computer literacy and reading. Though there

appears to be disagreement in the results of one-to-one technology integration, many of

these studies did not examine one-to-one technology on a holistic scale.

This study examined whether one-to-one technology integration improved

students’ understanding of reading, writing, and mathematics. Unlike other studies

involving technology, this study took a more holistic approach by examining student
 7

achievement scores in reading, writing, and mathematics. Although the focal point of this

study was 11th grade students, the problem may extend to all grades below 11th grade.

By carefully examining the differences in achievement scores between one-to-one

technology integration and a traditional approach, this study will assist administrators and

teachers who are looking to implement this form of technology into their curriculum.

Furthermore, the results of this study may address the teachers’ view of pedagogy in the

21st century. As Yelland and Neal (2013) alluded to, simply providing a student with

access to technology is not enough to change pedagogical practices. According to the

research, in order to change pedagogical practices, schools need to implement a

professional development plan that focuses on integrating technology into the classroom

culture (Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Chikasanda, Mbubzi, Ostrel-Cass, Williams, & Jones,

2013; Courville, 2011b; Hodges & Prater, 2014; Penuel, 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012;

Smith, 2014; Warschauer & Ames, 2010).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative causal comparative research was to determine if a

difference existed between the achievement scores of students who attended a one-to-one

school and the achievement scores of those who attended a traditional school. For this

research, the researcher chose two high schools in the New England area. One of the

schools has adopted a one-to-one technology approach (School A). The other school is

utilizing a traditional approach (School B).

In terms of demographics, School A is similar to School B. The teaching

approach associated with these two schools will be the independent variable. The

students attending School A utilized a one-to-one technology setting and those who
 8

attended School B utilized a more traditional approach. The scores on the three NECAP

tests (reading, writing, and mathematics) for 11th graders measured the dependent

variable. These tests are one measure of a student’s achievement in meeting the grade

span expectations (GSEs). The NECAP assessment is comprised of three individual tests:

reading, mathematics, and writing. This study examined the results for the 2013/2014

testing year.

This study provided empirical data to help educators determine whether a one-to-

one computer program is a viable option for their school district. This study also provided

educators with information regarding how they could successfully implement technology

into their classrooms for authentic learning. Additionally, institutions of higher learning

could use the results of this study to redesign their technology course work for pre-

service teachers.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Many studies have examined the relationship between the students’ use of

technology and the effect that technology had on their standardized tests scores. The

majority of these studies have approached the research from the teacher’s perspective, or

more appropriately, the ability of the teacher to implement the technology (Abbitt, 2011;

Bebell, O’Dwyer, Russell, & Hoffman, 2010; Chikasanda et al., 2013; Poitras, Lajoie, &

Hong, 2012; Rohaan, Taconis, & Jochems, 2012; Shirley, Irving, Sanalan, Pape, &

Owens, 2011; Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). Additionally, many of the studies were

conducted with a narrow focus: the type and frequency of the technology used (Bulut &

Bulut, 2011; Galligan et al., 2010; Hsu & Sharma, 2006); teacher’s comfort level

regarding the technology and the frequency of its classroom usage (Crowe & Ma, 2010;
 9

Delen & Bulut, 2011; Donovan et al., 2012); the correlation between technology use and

student achievement on standardized tests (Delen & Bulut, 2011; House, 2011); and the

effect the technology has on literacy (Henderson, 2011; Keengwe et al., 2012; Parycek,

Sachs, & Schossböck, 2011).

Stated another way, prior studies have traditionally only focused on one content

area. This study focused on the differences, as measured by student achievement on the

reading, writing, and mathematics NECAP tests, of one-to-one schools versus traditional

high school. One-to-one schools are schools that provide each student with his or her own

laptop. Traditional schools are those schools that may utilize laptops, but not every

student has his or her own. The following research questions guide this study:

R1: Is there a difference in the student achievement scores on the NECAP

mathematics test between students who were engaged in a one-to-one

technology school versus students who attended a traditional school?

H1: Students who participated in a one-to-one technology school will demonstrate

higher achievement scores on the NECAP mathematics test than those who

participated in a traditional school.

H01: No statistically significant difference existed between the NECAP

mathematics test achievement scores of students who participated in a one-to-

one technology school and those who attended a traditional school.

R2: Is there a difference in the student achievement scores on the NECAP reading

test between students who were engaged in a one-to-one technology school

versus students who attended a traditional school?

 10

H2: Students who participated in a one-to-one technology school will demonstrate

higher achievement scores on the NECAP reading test than those who

participated in a traditional school.

H02: No statistically significant difference existed between the NECAP reading test

achievement scores of students who participated in a one-to-one technology

school and those who attended a traditional school.

R3: Is there a difference in the student achievement scores on the NECAP writing

test between students who were engaged in a one-to-one technology school

versus students who attended a traditional school?

H3: Students who participated in a one-to-one technology school will demonstrate

higher achievement scores on the NECAP writing test than those who

participated in a traditional school.

H03: No statistically significant difference existed between the NECAP writing test

achievement scores of students who participated in a one-to-one technology

school and those who attended a traditional school.

Advancing Scientific Knowledge

Numerous studies examined the association between technology use in the

classroom and student achievement scores on standardized tests (Delen & Bulut, 2011;

Henderson, 2011; House, 2011; Keengwe et al., 2012; Parycek, Sachs, & Schossböck,

2011). Although much of this prior research was focused on mathematics, few studies

exist that examined the association between technology use and reading scores and the

association between technology use and writing scores. This study examined technology

implementation from a more holistic perspective. That is to say, instead of focusing on

 11

one content area, this study examined the results on the reading, writing and mathematics

assessments.

Since this study involved the implementation of technology, the digital divide is

resurfacing. The original divide involved who had the technology and who did not have it

(Gore, 1998; Kassam et al., 2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013). By supplying each student

with his or her own laptop, the original divide is no longer justified. However, a new

divide is surfacing. Two arguments exist regarding this new divide. The first one involves

social inclusion, or Internet connectivity (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Kassam, Iding, &

Hogebirk, 2013; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Yelland & Neal, 2013). The

second involves how the technology is being used (Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson,

2010; Kassam et al., 2013; Kennedy, Judd, Dalgarno, & Waycott, 2010; Smith, 2014).

According to the literature, a gap exists concerning these two arguments.

According to the extant literature, with regard to mathematical content, two

opposing sides have voiced their concerns regarding the use of technology in the

classroom. These two opposing sides include mathematics teachers and mathematicians.

Mathematics teachers see technology as a tool that can be used to meet the needs of a

diverse population and provide a means to promote engagement (Abbitt, 2011; Bulut &

Bulut, 2011; Chikasanda et al., 2013; Courville, 2011b; Galligan et al., 2010; Holland &

Holland, 2014; House, 2011; E. Kim, 2011; Poitras et al., 2012; Sundeen & Sundeen,

2013).

Research mathematicians, as well as some other researchers, view technology as a

hindrance to the development of the skills required to truly understand mathematics

(Crowe & Ma, 2010; Kurz, 2011). Furthermore, some researchers found technology
 12

integration as a means of supporting traditional teaching strategies (Claro et al., 2013;

Donovan et al., 2012; Keengwe et al., 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010).

The study conducted by Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, and Caranikis-Walker

(2011) examined the effects of the Technology Immersion model on student

achievement. In this study, the researchers compared the academic achievement scores in

mathematics and reading between 21 middle schools that implemented a one-to-one

laptop program and 21 control schools. The results of this study indicated no statistically

significant difference existed in mathematics or reading between the two groups.

However, the Technology Immersion model did indicate a positive effect on students’

technology proficiency. This is an important finding when viewed through the lens of

preparing students to enter a 21st century work force.

In the project conducted by Daniels, Hamby, and Chen (2015), which focused on

situated cognition, the authors examined the implementation of technology and its effect

on reading and writing. Daniels et al. (2015) provided anecdotal evidence that indicated

an increase in their students’ desire to read and write. Furthermore, the data suggested a

correlation between students’ participation in the project and their test scores. The

authors concluded that since the data indicated a positive correlation, students who have

experienced academic success would continue to read and write on their own.

Mathematics has been the focal point for the majority of the research. This,

however, is only a small portion of educational reform. On a more holistic scale,

education reform is about more than raising our student’s mathematics scores. Education

reform must influence all aspects of education. Furthermore, educational reform must

focus on closing the achievement gap.

 13

This study examined the impact technology has on reading, writing, and

mathematics. Additionally, this study looked at current technology trends such as the

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Partnership for 21st

Century Skills (2011). These two organizations have identified technology skills

associated with success in the 2016 global market place.

Significance of the Study

One recent effort associated with improving learning is through the

implementation of technology. According to Keengwe et al. (2012), technology

integration is a process that incorporates technology into the curriculum as a teaching

tool. Based on the research conducted by Donovan et al. (2012), the integration of

technology should be an easy transition as the Millennials, those born after 1980, are

entering the teaching profession and have integrated technology into many of the aspects

of their lives. However, as some researchers have noted, these Millennials are not a

homogeneous group (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Henderson,

2011; Kennedy et al., 2010; Parycek et al., 2011; Yelland & Neal, 2013). Unfortunately,

those students who do not have technology available to them may see the achievement

gap grow larger (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson,

2011; Kassam et al., 2013; Reinhart et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Yelland & Neal,

2013).

Implementing a one-to-one technology program ensures each student has a laptop

available for use. Students are free to use these laptops while in school and at home. By

providing each student with a laptop, socioeconomic status may be removed, or at least

reduced, from the digital divide.

 14

In order for students to compete on a global scale, they must understand the role

technology plays in society. The International Society for Technology in Education

(ISTE) (formerly known as NETS) (2014), Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

(2015), and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011) all address this concern.

Together, they are addressing the requirements to be competitive in a global market.

The ISTE has compiled a list of standards for students, teachers, administrators,

coaches, and computer science educators. Each of these strands identifies the skills and

knowledge needed to be successful in a digital world. According to ISTE (2014), the

student standards inform students of what they need to know in order to “learn effectively

and live productively in an increasingly global and digital world” (2014, para. 3). The

standards for teachers list the “skills and knowledge educators need to teach, work and

learn in an increasingly connected global and digital society” (ISTE, 2014, para. 4).

Finally, the standards for administrators identify the need for “evaluating the skills and

knowledge school administrators and leaders need to support digital age learning,

implement technology, and transform the instruction landscape” (ISTE, 2014, para. 5).

Implementing technology into a school’s curriculum will also affect how teachers

teach. Kurz (2011) stated that teachers would need to critically examine how the new

technologies will support or hinder learning. Roberts et al. (2012) offer a different

approach, suggesting that curriculum goals should guide technology integration. A key

component to embedding technology into a school’s curriculum begins with the

educational track of preservice teachers (Abbitt, 2011; Bebell et al., 2010; Chikasanda et

al., 2013; Galligan et al., 2010; Kurz, 2011; Rohaan et al., 2012; Shirley et al., 2011; P.
 15

Williams, 2013). This study may illuminate new possibilities in teacher education

programs offered at colleges and universities.

Rationale for Methodology

In determining the most appropriate methodology that would address the research

questions, a quantitative methodology was the best choice for measuring the relationship

between the variables in this study: One-to-one technology, traditional schooling, and

student achievement scores. The comparisons of results on a standardized test where one

sample is from a one-to-one technology school and the other sample is from a traditional

school are in proper alignment with the definition of variable. Additionally, this matches

the definition of quantitative research offered by Yilmaz (2013). Yilmaz stated that

quantitative research uses mathematical analysis of data to explain a phenomenon.

Arghode (2012) noted that quantitative researchers use numbers to study a phenomenon

or occurrence. This study investigated the phenomenon through statistical analysis. The

researcher conducted a t test in order to answer the research questions.

Arghode (2012) stated that in a quantitative research design, the researchers are

typically outsiders and therefore, they do not influence the outcome of the study. By

contrast, the qualitative researcher seeks to understand meaning through interviews, case

studies, and observations (Arghode, 2012). For this study, the researcher conducted a

statistical analysis of the data and used that analysis to accept or reject the null

hypotheses. Therefore, a quantitative methodology was justified. Another important

element of quantitative research involves the relationship of the researcher and the

research subjects. For this study, the researcher remained external of the research

subjects. This is further justification for a quantitative research method.

 16

Nature of the Research Design for the Study

This study utilized a nonexperimental, causal comparison study. Schenker and

Rumrill (2004) noted that this design is appropriate when the researcher cannot

manipulate the independent variable. In this study, the researcher could not manipulate

the independent variables, as they were a function of the school that the subjects attended.

According to Postlethwaite, in Pavesic (2012), four major aims of a comparative

study exist. The first is to identify what is working elsewhere that might help improve the

educational system here (identifying best practices) (Postlethwaite, in Pavesic, 2012).

The second describes similarities and differences between systems of education and

interpret why they exist (Postlethwaite, in Pavesic, 2012). The third is to estimate the

relative effects of variables on outcomes (Postlethwaite, in Pavesic, 2012). The final aim

of a causal comparative study is to understand the relationship between the variables

associated with an education system and a specific outcome (Postlethwaite, in Pavesic,

2012).

This study also examined whether the use of a one-to-one technology approach

produces a difference in achievement scores on the New England Common Assessment

Program (NECAP) tests than those scores obtained by students who attended a traditional

high school. Since this study followed a causal-comparative design, the researcher was

not looking for a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, a correlation could not be

calculated without the ability to manipulate the independent variable.

This study focused on 11th grade students at two schools in the northeast region

of the United States. The data generated for this study was from the NECAP assessments

in mathematics, reading, and writing. All students in the states of New Hampshire,
 17

Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island complete this assessment. Each states Department of

Education receives the data in an Excel file. The researcher received the data in an Excel

file.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows:

Academic Yearly Progress (AYP). Districts and schools must meet performance

targets established for students in reading and mathematics. Additionally, students must

meet targets established for NECAP participation, attendance, and graduation (New

Hampshire Department of Education, 2012a).

Computer Algebra System (CAS). Computer Algebra System is software that

allows the user to perform algebraic manipulations such as factoring, multiplying

polynomials, solving equations, and taking derivatives (Meagher, 2011).

Digital divide. The digital divide is a term used to distinguish between those who

have new technologies (initially computers) and those who do not have them (Gore,

1998; Kassam et al., 2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013).

Digital immigrants. Digital immigrants are those individuals who were not born

into the digital world but have at some point adapted to the new technology (Prensky,

2001a).

Digital natives. Digital natives are those students who are native speakers of the

digital language associated with computers, video games, and the Internet (Presnky,

2001a).

GeoGebra. GeoGebra is interactive geometry software that also allows students to

enter equations directly (Bulut & Bulut, 2011).

 18

Grade span expectation (GSE). Grade span expectations describe the

expectations that students will meet at the end of their sophomore year. Grade span

expectations fall under two categories: state and local. The NECAP assessments measure

the state-level-grade-span expectations. Each school embeds the local grade span

expectations in their curriculum. The New Hampshire Department of Education lists 17

GSEs for mathematics (2006a), 20 GSEs for reading (2006b), and 26 GSEs for writing

(2006c). Each of these grade span expectations are assessed on the NECAP tests. (See

Appendix A for an example of a grade span expectation from each of the three content

areas).

One-to-one. According to Larkin (2012), one-to-one means each student is

provided with a laptop computer.

Pedagogy. Pedagogy is defined as a teachers understanding, and implementation

of, effective instructional strategies (Chikasanda et al., 2013).

Traditional school. A traditional school is a school that has not implemented a

one-to-one technology plan.

Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations

Assumptions. The following assumptions was present in this study:

1. The students from School A and School B made a similar effort to be

successful.

2. The assessments completed by the students at School A and School B were of

a similar difficulty level.

 19

Limitations. This study faced the following limitations.

1. The research was limited to two high schools in the New England area. The

two high schools were from a medium Socio Economic Status (SES). The

researcher would have preferred having two schools from the low SES but the

researcher could not locate a school that utilized one-to-one technology in this

bracket.

2. The demographics associated with the two schools are not conducive to

generalizing a population. According to Measured Progress (2014), the total

sample for this study was more than 90% White (nonHispanic).

3. Since the researcher could not manipulate the independent variable, the

researcher chose a causal-comparative study. Furthermore, this type of study

does not allow the researcher to examine a correlation between the

independent and dependent variables.

Delimitations. The following delimitations were present in this study.

1. The researcher chose two school districts located in the northeast region of the

United States. The researcher chose these two schools based on their

individual approaches to technology implementation. One of the schools

utilized a one-to-one technology approach and the other school was

traditional. Demographically, these two schools are similar.

2. All 11th grade students in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode

Island are required to complete the NECAP assessment. The NECAP

assessment includes individual tests in reading, writing, and mathematics. All

 20

students participate in testing in the fall of their junior year.

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) is forcing school districts to

be accountable for each student’s standardized test achievement score. Accountability is a

key component in the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (2015) and the

International Society for Technology in Education (2014). Additionally, the Partnership

for 21st Century Skills (2011) is advocating the need to prepare students for employment

in a rapidly changing digital landscape. The interconnectedness of the global economy is

requiring people to communicate, collaborate, and solve problems on a worldwide level

(Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). Schools must ensure they are preparing individuals to enter

this type of workforce.

According to the extant literature, a debate remains regarding the effectiveness of

technology use in the classroom and student achievement scores on high stakes tests. One

area of research that has seen the most attention is mathematical content. However, some

disparity exists in this content area. Mathematics teachers perceive technology has a tool

to provide personalized, interactive learning that is engaging to the students (Bulut &

Bulut, 2011; Holland, 2014; House, 2011; Hsu & Sharma, 2006; Kurz, 2011). Research

mathematicians offer an opposing viewpoint. They see technology as a means of limiting

mathematical understanding (Crowe & Ma, 2010).

Another area of concern in the research is the role that the digital divide has on

equity. Many studies have indicated that a digital divide still exists (Bennett & Maton,

2010; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson, 2011; Iding &

Crosby, 2010; Kassam et al., 2013; Male & Pattinson, 2011; Parycek et al., 2011;
 21

Reinhart et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Smith, 2014; K. Williams, 2013; Yelland &

Neal, 2013). Educators must not only acknowledge that the digital divide exists; they

must employ innovative approaches to eliminate, or at least reduce, its adverse effects on

student achievement.

Prior studies have focused on a very small portion of education (Bulut & Bulut,

2011; House, 2011). Many of these studies focused on the mathematical content area

(Crowe & Ma, 2010; Galligan et al., 2010). According to the research, educational reform

must include several components such as changing technology integration to align with

curriculum (Bulut & Bulut, 2011; Donovan et al., 2012; Galligan et al., 2010; Holland,

2014; Kennedy et al., 2010; Kurz, 2011; Larkin, 2012; Male & Pattinson, 2011; Musawi,

2011; Poitras et al., 2012; Riley, 2007; Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011; Rushby, 2013;

Shirley et al., 2011; P. J. Williams, 2013), changing pedagogy (Bennett & Maton, 2010;

Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson, 2011; Hodges &

Prater, 2014; Penuel, 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Smith, 2014; Sundeen & Sundeen,

2013), and creating a professional development plan that provides educators with the

resources they need to implement technology in an effective manner (Chikasanda et al.,

2013; Courville, 2011b; Warschauer & Ames, 2010).

In Chapter 2, the researcher identifies the theoretical framework and provides the

literature review for this study. The researcher identified six themes for the literature

review. Within these six themes, the researcher identified a gap associated with the

digital divide. Chapter 2 concludes with a summation of the key themes.

In Chapter 3, the researcher presents the methodology used to complete this study.

In this chapter the researcher identifies the problem and lists the research questions and
 22

hypotheses. Furthermore, the researcher provides a justification for the research method

and the research design. Chapter 3 also provides a description of the population and

sample. A review of the instrument and its associated psychometrics is also included in

this chapter. Additionally, the researcher provides a description of the data collection,

management, and analysis procedures. Finally, the researcher lists the ethical

considerations, limitations, and delimitations.

In Chapter 4, the researcher discusses the data analysis and results. The data

analysis includes descriptive and inferential statistics. Finally, this chapter provides a

detailed presentation of the results of this study. The chapter concludes with a summary.

In Chapter 5, the researcher provided a summary of the study, as well as

conclusions and recommendations. Additionally, the researcher discusses theoretical,

practical, and future implications in this chapter. The chapter concludes with

recommendations for future research and future practices.

 23

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem

Education reform is once again making national headlines. With the passing of

the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, known as the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) (2001), transparency and accountability have become the driving force for

educational reform (Bebell et al., 2010; Rushby, 2013). School leaders must identify

innovative approaches that will not only increase student achievement on standardized

tests, but will also reduce the achievement gap. Many leaders are examining ways in

which technology may be used to increase student achievement (Bebell et al., 2010;

Courville, 2011a; Waxman, Boriack, Yuan-Hsuan, & MacNeil, 2013) and close the

achievement gap (Rosen & Many-Ikan, 2011). The research indicates that technology

integration is reintroducing and redefining the digital divide (Brown & Czerniewicz,

2010; Kennedy et al., 2010).

The digital divide has become a polysemous term. Though the term was once

used to describe the difference between individuals who had access to a computer and

those who did not (Gore, 1998), it has taken on many new meanings. According to the

research, several new definitions exist regarding the digital divide. Some of them focus

on the use of technology rather than access to it (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Kassam et al.,

2013; Kennedy et al., 2010; Reinhart et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Yelland & Neal,

2013). Others have taken a pedagogical approach by examining technology integration

from a teacher’s perspective (Henderson, 2011; Kennedy at al., 2010; Reinhart et al.,

2011; Smith, 2014). Regardless of how one defines the digital divide, the impact the

digital divide is having on education is clear. If educational reforms goal is to close the
 24

achievement gap, acknowledging the role of the digital divide is paramount (Rosen &

Beck-Hill, 2012). According to the research, technology integration (Abbitt, 2011; Al

Musawi, 2011; Donovan et al., 2012; Keengwe et al., 2012; C. Kim & Keller, 2011;

Rohaan et al., 2012; Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011; Shirley et al., 2011; Sundeen &

Sundeen, 2013; Warschauer & Ames, 2010; Waxman et al., 2013) and Internet access

(Bebell et al., 2010; Kassam et al., 2013; Kennedy et al., 2010; Male & Pattinson, 2011;

Parycek et al., 2011; Reinhart et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013)

are key components in reducing or eliminating the effects of the digital divide.

Both past and current research was examined in an effort to identify the issues

pertaining to the digital divide. The primary area of concern for this study is the current

one-to-one computer-technology-integration movement. A review of the literature was

conducted using peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles, books, and dissertations

located with the aid of EBSCO host and ProQuest search engines. Key phrases and words

used with these search engines included technology, one-to-one, school reform, digital

divide, technology integration, pedagogy, and technogogy (Musawi, 2011). The

researcher made an effort to locate journal articles, books, and dissertations from 2010 to

2014. However, some preexisting knowledge bases, older articles, books, and

dissertations were included in this study. Furthermore, in some instances, material older

than 2010 was included to create a logical flow and to highlight important issues that the

educational system has faced, or is still facing. Through careful examination of both past

and current studies, the researcher was able to identify a gap in the literature regarding

technology integration and the digital divide. Some researchers claim the gap is closing

(Parycek et al., 2011; Reinhart et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013) while others suggest
 25

the gap is widening (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson,

2011; Yelland & Neal, 2013).

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the background of the study, review the

theoretical framework that is guiding this study, and to explore the past and current

research that is pertinent to this study. Finally, this chapter will conclude with a

summation of the literature and a synthesis of the gap found in the literature. This gap is

guiding this research.

The remainder of this chapter includes a description of the theoretical framework

guiding this study and a presentation of a review of the literature. The focus of the

literature review is on six main themes. The focus of the first theme is an examination of

past, and current, education reform movements. The researcher believes that in order to

understand how we arrived at this point in educational reform, we should examine the

movements that have been guiding educational reform. The second theme is the role that

technology integration is playing in education. One technology integration approach

gaining emphasis in the literature is the implementation of one-to-one computing (Chang

et al., 2012; Claro et al., 2013; Donovan et al., 2012; Keengwe et al., 2012; Larkin, 2012;

Penuel, 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). This study will

also include some alternatives to a one-to-one technology approach. The third theme is

the role that the digital divide is having on ensuring all students are prepared for

employment and higher education in a complex, digital society (Bennett & Maton, 2010;

Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Henderson, 2011; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Friedrich &

Hron, 2010; Iding & Crosby, 2013; Jones & Healing, 2010; Kassam et al., 2013;

Kennedy et al., 2010; Male & Pattinson, 2011; Parycek et al., 2011; Reinhart et al., 2011;
 26

Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Smith, 2014; K. Williams, 2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013). The

fourth theme is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) (2011). The purpose of P21

was to identify the skills that students need to acquire in order to be engaged, productive

citizens. The two main objectives of these skills are to promote deeper learning and

develop higher-order thinking skills (Brusic & Shearer, 2014; Donovan, Green, &

Mason, 2014; Lowther et al., 2012; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Tucker, 2014). The fifth

theme is the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS, similar to P21, are

defining the skills and knowledge students need to be college and career ready

(Applebee, 2013; Berger, 2013; Caltabiano, 2013; CCSS, 2014; Grindon, 2014; Kozdras

& Day, 2013; Roberts et al., 2012). The final theme will explore the impact technology is

having on pedagogy. According to some researchers, our educational system has to

change to ensure technology is embedded into the curriculum, not just added to the

existing educational framework (Djebbari, 2012; Gano, 2011; Mims-Word, 2012; Monk,

Campbell, & Smala, 2013; Philip & Garcia, 2013).

Theoretical Foundations

The digital divide is the theoretical framework for this research. In its early years,

the digital divide was a dichotomous term (Yelland & Neal, 2013). The digital divide was

first used to distinguish between those who have new technologies (initially computers)

with those who did not have them (Gore, 1998). Ritzhaupt et al. (2013) stated that the

term digital divide has become polysemous; it has different meanings for different

people. Since entering our vernacular, the term digital divide has taken on new meanings.
 27

With the prices of personal computers decreasing, the digital divide has taken on

new meanings. According to the literature the digital divide has been used by researchers

to define those who have the technology and those who do not (Bennett & Maton, 2010;

Kennedy et al., 2010), how the technology is being used in the homes and the classrooms

(Henderson, 2011; Kassam et al., 2013; Reinhart et al., 2011; Yelland & Neal, 2013),

how technology, and the digital divide, are affecting pedagogy (Bennett & Maton, 2010;

Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Djebbari, 2012; Gano, 2011; Henderson, 2011; Male &

Pattinson, 2011; Mims-Word, 2012; Monk et al., 2013; Philip & Garcia, 2013; Reinhart

et al., 2011; Smith, 2014), and how students need technology skills to compete in the

rapidly changing organizational structures of the modern businesses (Donovan, Green, &

Mason, 2014; Iding & Crosby, 2013; Kassam et al., 2013; Lowther et al., 2012; Mims-

Word, 2012; Philip & Garcia, 2013; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012;

Smith, 2014; Tucker, 2014).

Another term that has been used frequently with regard to both technology

integration and the digital divide is digital native (Prensky, 2001a; b). The Net

Generation is a term often used to describe digital natives (Kennedy et al., 2010).

Kennedy et al. (2010) also noted that some studies have treated digital natives as a

homogenous group. This homogenous label is due to the use of descriptors. These

descriptors describe the group, not the individuals (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Brown &

Czerniewicz, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) stated that the basis

for these descriptors is anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, these authors noted that the use

of anecdotal evidence has created a false set of assumptions. The inaccuracies of these
 28

assumptions have also been identified in Bennett and Maton (2010), Brown and

Czerniewicz (2010), and Kennedy et al. (2010).

The research on the Net Generation is creating a new definition for the digital

divide (Reinhart et al., 2011). Furthermore, evidence exists indicating that the digital

divide remains, even within the same generation (Kennedy et al., 2010; Yelland & Neal,

2013). Owning technology is not a part of the new digital divide. The new digital divide

focuses on how the technology is used (Kassam et al., 2013; Reinhart et al., 2011;

Ritzhaupt et al., 2013). In order to embed technology into the school’s curriculum, and

therefore sustain a reform movement, leaders must acknowledge the presence of this

digital divide and implement innovations to correct it (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Brown &

Czerniewicz, 2010; Reinhart et al., 2011; Smith, 2014). Based on the research, these

innovations need to address the implementation of a professional development plan that

meets the needs of this digital divide (Chikasanda et al., 2013; Hodges & Prater, 2014).

Review of the Literature

Educational reform has been the focus of many changes in academia. Driving

these reform movements are the mass media (Curtis, Bordelon, & Teitelbaum, 2010) and

politicians, both local and national (Bigham & Ray, 2012; Curtis et al., 2010; Trotter,

2006). The Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, commonly referred to as No Child

Left Behind (NCLB) (2001), continues to dictate educational reform. Hora and Holden

(2013) stated that the federal government, private foundations, and institutions of higher

learning are encouraging an inquiry-based teaching approach (Holland & Holland, 2014).

This inquiry-based approach has led many institutions of learning to turn towards

technology innovation as a means to increase student achievement, and comply with

 29

NCLB (Mims-Word, 2012). One current technology initiative that is advancing in the

research is a one-to-one laptop initiative (Chang, Liu, and Shen, 2012; Claro et al., 2013;

Keengwe et al., 2012; Larkin, 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). According to Larkin

(2012), one-to-one means each student is provided with his or her own laptop computer.

Furthermore, with regard to education, one-to-one computing does not refer to how the

laptops are actually used (Larkin, 2012). Therefore, an ongoing debate regarding the

effectiveness of a one-to-one laptop initiative still exists in the literature.

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program, founded by Nicholas Negroponte, is

an ambitious academic reform movement (Warschauer & Ames, 2010). The OLPC

initiative stated that students would teach themselves to use the laptop (Warschauer &

Ames, 2010). Some one-to-one studies claim that technology implementation will

increase student achievement (Claro et al., 2013; Larkin, 2012). However, few studies

have actually provided empirical data to support the claims (Courville, 2011b;

Warschauer & Ames, 2010). Therefore, the debate regarding the role of technology in

academic reform continues.

One area of question in the literature is the role that technology should play in

this reform movement (Riser, 2011). Penuel (2006) noted that computer labs have a

negative effect on technology integration. Some schools with computer labs see them

used less frequently due to the need to schedule lab time and transport the students to and

from the lab (Penuel, 2006). Furthermore, Penuel (2006) observed that computer labs are

only effective over a short term. Claro et al. (2013) noted that both national and

international research has been unable to produce conclusive evidence on the impact of

information and communication technology (ICT) and student learning.

 30

There are two dissimilar thought processes regarding the implementation of

technology (Riser, 2011). In the research, these two views are a dichotomy, rather than a

continuum. The first process involves the negative impact it has on the actual learning of

specific content, especially in the area of mathematics (Bressoud, 2009; Crowe & Ma,

2010; Dillon, 2006; Jardine, 2001; Vestal, 2008; Wildstrom, 2006). The second process

examines the positive impact that technology may have on assisting students in learning

content (Abbitt, 2011; Holland, 2014; Musawi, 2011). These two philosophical beliefs

regarding technology use in education are key to understanding the role technology

should play in academia. Furthermore, a correlation exists between a teacher’s

acceptance of technology in the classroom and these two philosophical beliefs

(Chikasanda et al., 2013; Hodges & Prater, 2014; Rohaan et al., 2012).

The remainder of this literature review consists of six themes. School reform was

the focus of the first theme. The focal point of the second theme was the history of

technology integration. This theme also looked at one-to-one technology approaches as

well as alternatives to the one-to-one approach. The third theme focused on the digital

divide, both past and present definitions. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011)

was the premise for the fourth theme. According to P21, these are the skills needed to be

competitive in a global market place. The fifth theme looked at the current Common

Core State Standards (CCSS) reform movement. In 2016, a rapidly changing society is

requiring a new skill set. The CCSS, like P21, are ensuring individuals obtain those skills.

Changes in pedagogy are the main focus of the final theme. Specifically, how has

technology affected pedagogy?

 31

School reform. Kessinger (2011) identified seven important initiatives of school

reform. These included the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958,

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), A Nation at Risk, America 2000, Goals 2000, and the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, which is also known as No Child Left

Behind (NCLB). Though each of these reform movements attempted to change the goals

of our educational system, the major theory did not change (Kessinger, 2011). The major

theory associated with the educational system is essentialism (Curtis et al., 2010;

Kessinger, 2011). This theory, which later became neo-essentialism, is one of the guiding

philosophical theories linked to the educational system, and some of the reform

movements (Kessinger, 2011).

The following paragraphs provide a brief description for each of these reform

movements. The purpose here is to enlighten the reader on some of the major reform

movements from the past several decades. Furthermore, the following paragraphs will

show how the previous forms of academic reform have shaped our current educational

system.

The launching of Sputnik in 1957 by the Soviets drove the National Defense

Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 and led to an increase in aid for science programs (U.S.

Department of Education, 2010). This “watershed in the history of American education”

was in response to concerns that the United States was losing its scientific edge (Bailey &

Mosher, cited in Kessinger, 2011, p. 267). Some believed the problem was within our

schools and the progressive ideas that were dominating educational theory (Kessinger,

2011).
 32

The NDEA established funding for U.S. educational institutions. Congress

identified two purposes for the enactment of NDEA. The first was to provide the country

with “specific defense-oriented personnel” (Kessinger, 2011, p. 268). These specific

defense personnel included foreign language scholars, area study centers, and engineering

students. Second, NDEA provided financial assistance for students to enroll in colleges

and universities. NDEA placed a higher emphasis on math, science, and foreign language

(Kessinger, 2011). According to Kessinger (2011), these three subjects constitute the

basics in education.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 focused on

providing educational aid to the children of the poor and those identified as gifted (Bryan

& Chalfant, 1965). This was the time when the federal government stopped allocating

general federal aid for education and began applying categorical aid (Kessinger, 2011).

According to Kessinger (2011), tying federal aid to other national policy concerns

provided a means by which the federal government could establish the importance of

education.

In 1969, the U.S. Congress created the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), which is still in use today. Its primary purpose is to monitor students’

academic performance. In addition to monitoring, NAEP also measures and reports on

what America’s 4th, 8th, and 12th graders know and can do. NAEP provides objective

data in mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography,

economics, and the arts (Kessinger, 2011). NAEP has two goals. The first is to compare

student achievement in states and other jurisdictions. The second is to track changes in

achievement of 4th, 8th, and 12th grade students over time in mathematics, reading,
 33

writing, science, and other selected content area. These assessments are both ongoing and

continuous.

The publishing of A Nation at Risk in 1983 brought education reform back to the

forefront (National Commission on Excellence in Education; Richardson & Eddy, 2011).

In this paper, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (Commission)

identified 13 indicators of risk. A few of these risk factors included functionally illiterate

citizens, a decrease in College Board achievement scores, students’ lacking in higher

order intellectual skills, an increase in the number of remedial math courses being offered

at 4-year public colleges. Additionally, military and business leaders have noted an

increase in spending on remedial education and training programs (Commission, 1983).

The Commission (1983) noted that achievement scores showed American

students were never first or second on 19 academic tests, and American students finished

last in seven of these tests. The Commission (1983) also noted that 23 million American

adults were functionally illiterate. The Commission added that functional illiteracy

constitutes 13% of all 17-year-old Americans. Among minority children, functional

illiteracy can be as high as 40% (Commission, 1983).

Test scores have also been decreasing with the passing of time. The Commission

(1983) stated that average verbal scores on the College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Tests

(SAT) have decreased 50 points. The mathematics SAT test has shown a 40-point

decrease. The Commission (1983) also identified decreases in physics and English on

College Board achievement tests. Additionally, the Commission (1983) noted a decrease

in the national science assessments. As these tests scores decrease, the need for remedial

courses is increasing. The Commission stated that these remedial courses now constitute
 34

25% of the mathematics courses offered at four-year colleges. These numbers indicated

that fewer students were entering college with the requisite skills needed to be successful.

Another discrepancy noted by the Commission (1983) involved higher order

thinking skills. Business organizations, as well as the military, have had to spend millions

of dollars on remedial education and training programs. These remedial courses and

training programs have focused on reading, writing, spelling, and computation. Similar to

the students entering college, fewer students were entering the workforce with the skills

they needed to succeed.

Finally, the Commission (1983) noted that these deficiencies were arriving at a

time when demand for highly skilled workers in new fields was increasing. These fields

included, but were not limited to, computers and computer-controlled equipment, laser

technology, and robotics. Furthermore, technology was transforming many other

occupations. In summation, the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated,

“For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation

will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents” (1983, p.

4).

In 1989, President Bush and the National Governors’ Association co-convened an

educational summit to examine the educational system and set goals that would affect

change (Kessinger, 2011). Because of this summit, six goals were established. These

goals focused on school readiness, high school completion, student achievement and

citizenship, mathematics and science, adult literacy and lifelong learning, and safe, drug

and alcohol free schools. “America 2000: An Education Strategy” is the name of this plan

(Kessinger, 2011, p. 273).

 35

U.S. President Bill Clinton amended America 2000: An Education Strategy

(Kessinger, 2011). President Clinton named his amended plan “Goals 2000: Educate

America Act” (Kessinger, 2011, p. 273). This amended plan adopted the six goals

established under America 2000: An Education Strategy and added two more goals

(Kessinger, 2011). These additional goals focused on parental participation and teacher

education and professional development (Kessinger, 2011). These goals created a shift in

the educational systems focus from narrow categorical programs to an approach that

would help all students succeed academically (Kessinger, 2010).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, known as No Child Left

Behind (NCLB), moved accountability and transparency to the top of the list for school

administrators. In the years prior to NCLB, districts reported Academic Yearly Progress

(AYP) based on the overall achievement scores of their students. Since the passing of

NCLB, AYP is now dependent upon the individual achievement scores. Under NCLB,

districts had to report the results based on all students, students with and without an IEP,

students with and without socioeconomic disadvantage, males and females, and students

who are, and are not, receiving Title 1 services. With a renewed focus on accountability

and transparency, educational leaders began looking for ways in which they could gain a

competitive advantage, improve the achievement scores of all students, and close the

achievement gap.

According to Fullan (2000), many of the reform movements failed for two

reasons: local school development and infrastructure. According to Fullan, local school

development and infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. Fullan identified three stories

that provide the framework for education reform. These include the inside story, the
 36

inside-out story, and the outside-in story. In his inside story, Fullan (2000) identifies the

attributes associated with a collaborative learning organization, or professional learning

communities. Other researchers have also focused on professional learning communities

as a means of reforming education (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008; Schmoker, 2004).

One common thread associated with professional learning communities is a

paradigm shift from a teacher-centered classroom to one that is student-centered. The

research indicated that this shift is also the impetus for a change in pedagogy

(Chikasandra et al., 2013; Hsu & Sharma, 2006; Kurz, 2011; Larkin, 2012; Penuel, 2006;

Monk et al., 2013; P. Williams, 2013).

According to Fullan’s (2000) inside-out story, education reform must occur

outside the confines of the school walls. The barriers that at one time separated the school

environment from the community have become transparent. Furthermore, teacher

collaboration is removing the interior barriers of the school (Fullan, 2000; Holland, 2011;

Loveland & Dunn, 2014; Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011). In order for learning to occur,

parents, the community, teachers, and the students must develop a rapport (Fullan, 2000).

Fullan’s (2000) outside-in story primarily focused on reform infrastructure. In

essence, this story is about adopting the successful reform plans of individual schools.

Furthermore, successful reform involves implementation on a large scale.

Large-scale reform contains four major elements: policies focused on

decentralization, local capacity building, external accountability, and innovation (Fullan,

2000). Decentralization is the process of removing policies that stand in the way of

reform (Fullan, 2000). Local capacity building is an investment in policies, training,

professional development, and a support system (Fullan, 2000). Many researchers have
 37

focused on the importance of professional development in the reform process

(Chikasanda et al., 2013; Courville, 2011b; Hodges & Prater, 2014; Penuel, 2006; Rosen

& Beck-Hill, 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). The third element, external

accountability, should focus on the collection and analysis of data. This calls for

educators to become more proficient at assessment literacy (Fullan, 2000). The final

element involves innovation. Many scientific breakthroughs regarding cognitive

development have occurred (Abbitt, 2011; Chikasandra et al., 2013; Fullan, 2000;

Holland, 2014; Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). According to some researchers, these

breakthroughs have focused on the role that pedagogy plays in educational reform (Hora

& Holden, 2013; Tabach, 2011; Thomas & Hong, 2012). Based on the literature, there

appears to be no consensus regarding which direction school reform should take.

Summary. The purpose of this section was to show the role that the federal

government has played in education and various reform movements. Petrilli (2012) stated

it this way: “…thanks to George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and Barack

Obama’s Race to the Top, Uncle Sam is driving education reform” (p. 2). Scholars often

credit Thomas Jefferson with our democratic education system (Boutin & Rodgers, 2011;

DuFour et al., 2008; Schaub, 2012). Jefferson (1782) noted the importance of diffusing

knowledge to the masses. Jefferson’s plan was to provide three years of schooling to each

child. From each of the 20 schools, the boys of best genius would continue their

education at the public’s expense (Jefferson). At the end of six years, the top 10 would

continue their education at William and Mary College. Jefferson (1782) noted that the

ultimate result would be to educate all the children in reading, writing, and common
 38

arithmetic. Furthermore, 10 would continue with studies that included Greek, Latin,

geography, and higher branches of arithmetic.

Additionally, 10 others would be educated in the sciences. “The general objects of

this law are to provide an education adapted to the years, to the capacity, and the

condition of every one, and directed to their freedom and happiness” (Jefferson, 1782). In

modern day academia, differentiated instruction keeps this statement alive.

Beginning in the 1930s, a debate developed regarding an educational theory

dichotomy. On one side, the essentialists were emphasizing a return to the basics.

According to Kessinger (2011), the basics included subjects, disciplines, or skills found

in the content of education. Furthermore, the focus on core or essential subjects is the

definition of essentialism (Kessinger, 2011). The other side of the dichotomy is the

progressives. According to Ornstein and Levine (2008), the aim of progressivism was to

prepare competent and skilled individuals. The main focus from the progressive side is

student-centered learning (Kessinger, 2011). These opposing theories are still in question

today.

As the debate between essentialism and progressivism continued, the Soviets

launched Sputnik in 1957. For many, this was an indication that our schools were

inadequate (Kessinger, 2011). In response to Sputnik, Congress passed the National

Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958.With the passing of NDEA, subjects such as

math, science, and foreign language became the new core subjects. The NDEA expanded

federal funding for education (Kessinger, 2011).

In the 1960s, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” called for the

creation of programs to improve education for the poor (Kessinger, 2011). This led to the
 39

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). This act abandoned general

federal aid and replaced it with categorical aid. This act also linked federal aid to

parochial schools to ensure all children would benefit from the aid.

In 1969, Congress formerly created the National Assessment of Education

Progress (NAEP). The purpose of NAEP is to continuously monitoring the knowledge,

skills, and performance of America’s 4th, 8th, and 12th graders. NAEP has two major

goals. The first is to compare student achievement in states and other jurisdictions. The

other goal is to track changes in achievement of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in reading,

mathematics, writing, science, and other selected content area (Kessinger, 2011).

According to the provisions of NCLB, every two years all 4th and 8th graders complete

the NAEP assessments. Twelfth graders complete the assessment on a national level. The

NAEP website provides assessment data for all stakeholders.

The creation of our educational system, and the various reform movements for

that system, has primarily focused on educating all students. From No Child Left Behind

to the Race to the Top program, transparency and accountability have taken center stage.

This has placed an increased amount of pressure on school administrators as they create

innovative programs that will provide them with the data they need to comply with the

current reform movements. With the current focus on improving student understanding

and increasing student achievement scores on standardized tests, school administrators

are examining ways to integrate technology.

Technology. According to Rushby (2013), computer assisted instruction (CAI)

began in the early seventies. By 1977, the personal computer arrived and was supposed to

revolutionize education. In 2016, an ongoing debate remains regarding computer-aided

 40

instruction and its potential benefits for increasing student achievement (Bulut & Bulut,

2011; Chen, 2011; House, 2011; Waxman et al., 2013). Riser (2011) noted that one

disadvantage of putting computers in the classroom is that the students may not be using

them as they were intended. Some researchers have stated that the effective integration of

technology has not reached the classrooms (Abbitt, 2011; Al Musawi, 2011; Ceylan

Turk, Yaman, & Yurdakul, 2014; Chikasanda et al., 2013; Rohaan et al., 2012).

Ceylan et al. (2014) identified an important link between technology and

education reform. They noted that, “the reforms in education are necessary to derive

benefit from information and communication technologies” (Ceylan et al., 2014, p. 172).

However, technology is advancing at a faster rate than the educational reform movements

can implement them (Rushby, 2013). Holland and Holland (2014) stated that areas of

technology growth in the work place eventually extend into the educational arena.

Betrus (2012) noted that technology use in education lags behind the use of technology in

the wider culture. This is due to the testing requirements of technology prior to

implementing it in the classroom (Betrus, 2012).

When the first personal computers appeared in 1977, they were supposed to

revolutionize education (Rushby, 2013). A number of technological innovations followed

the personal computer. Each innovation brought with it a renewed focus on improving the

educational system (Rushby, 2013). Some of these innovations include the video discs,

compact disks, the World Wide Web, iPods, iPads, Smart phones, and interactive white

boards (Betrus, 2012; Rushby, 2013; Saine, 2012).

According to Musawi (2011), technology integration in education emerges in

three distinct roles. These three roles include the medium or resource role, the
 41

management role, and the delivery role. Some researchers have argued that technology is

not a medium anymore (Musawi, 2011). Other researchers perceive technology as a

medium to meet the needs of globalization (Holland & Holland, 2014).

Technology used as a medium enhances, rather than replaces, instructors

(Musawi, 2011). Furthermore, the instructor determines the pace of technology

implementation (Musawi, 2011). Technology as a resource places information at the

instructor and student’s fingertips. This approach provides global access to teachers and

students.

One of the five powerful external forces listed by Fullan (2000) is technology.

Other researchers have also examined how technology integration may affect school

reform (Betrus, 2012; Musawi, 2011; Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). Again, there appears to

be no consensus regarding the relationship between teachers and technology integration.

Fullan noted that the more powerful technology becomes, the more indispensible teachers

are. Other researchers have noted that with advances in technology, the role of the teacher

changes (Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011; Warschauer & Ames, 2010; P. Williams, 2013).

Students can now access instructional material, once only associated with the

classroom environment, at any time (Musawi, 2011). Mobile devices, such as iPads,

iPods, and mobile phones enhance this access. Student engagement, both inside and

outside of the classroom, occurs with the use of technology (Becker, 2011). Through

asynchronous communications, students can now ask teachers questions from outside the

classroom setting (Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). E. Kim (2011) noted that technology

promotes the transportation of knowledge on a worldwide scale. This provides all

 42

students with a voice, where they can obtain help when they require it (Holland &

Holland, 2014; Musawi, 2011).

One disadvantage with this connectedness is that some students may misuse the

technology (Kassam et al., 2013; Musawi, 2011;). Research has indicated that

inappropriate use of technology has included taking pictures, texting friends, playing

games, and cheating on tests (Musawi, 2011). Another disadvantage is the relative cost of

the technologies currently available (Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013). This could lead to an

increase in the digital divide (Musawi, 2011).

From a management perspective, technology has transformed many of the

noninstructional functions (Musawi, 2011). Many faculty members use technology for

administrative purposes, as well as for teaching and conducting research (Musawi, 2011).

Technology applications can improve the quality of education by “making lectures

seeable, readable, and hearable for ever-increasing number of students and crowded

classrooms” (Musawi, 2011, p. 132).

Finally, disagreement exists regarding utilizing technology in a delivery role.

According to Musawi (2011), the delivery role of technology enhances instructional

practices. However, Claro et al. (2013) stated that technology initiatives are only

supporting traditional teaching practices. Holland and Holland (2014) stated that new

technologies are providing teachers with ways to invigorate classroom instruction

(Holland & Holland, 2014). By using the Internet and mobile devices, teachers can

deliver knowledge and instruction through e-learning, multi-media learning, and virtual

learning (Musawi, 2011). Technology used as a delivery model facilitates e-learning

(Musawi, 2011). E-learning provides flexibility, accessibility, feasibility, and

 43

collaboration (Musawi, 2011). In this role, technology is removing barriers associated

with a traditional learning environment (Serianni & Coy, 2014; Soto, 2013). These new

roles associated with technology integration are not without drawbacks or conflict.

Positive and negative aspects associated with technology in the classroom exist

(Ralston, 2004). Ralston (2004) noted two forces regarding the positive and negative

aspects of technology integration in the school mathematics curriculum. On one side,

there are research mathematicians who claim that technology is hindering the students’

ability to comprehend mathematics. The other side, which is mainly comprised of

mathematical educators, states that technology allows all students to see, and experiment

with, the mathematical content. An ongoing debate remains as to the effectiveness of

technology use, especially in the mathematics content area.

Kurz (2011) noted that even with numerous tools available to support

mathematics instruction, students are still not learning mathematics. The results of this

ongoing technology transformation have resulted in only a marginal impact on education

(Rushby, 2013). Abbitt (2011) compared the changing role of technology with trying to

hit a moving target. Abbitt identified the moving target as the teachers’ ability to

successfully integrate the technology into instructional practices.

Technology integration has different definitions depending on who is examining it

and when that examination took place (Monk et al., 2013). In addition to who and when,

Musawi (2011) noted that careful attention must also be given to technology in a social

context. Furthermore, students in different social positions can have different experiences

with the same technology (Musawi, 2011). Hakkarainen, as cited in Ritella and

Hakkarainen (2012), stated, “technology enhances learning only through transformed

 44

social practices” (p. 240). Additionally, Ritella and Hakkarainen (2012) stated that

technology must first be integrated, or fused with the social practices of the participants

before it is can be used as an effective tool for learning. However, this integration, or

fusion, of technology does not guarantee that the technology will be effectively used as a

learning tool (Rushby, 2013).

Harris and Hofer (2011) identified effective educational technology integration as

that which occurs at the nexus of curriculum requirements, student learning needs,

available technology affordances and constraints, and the realities of the school and

classroom contexts. Based on the research, a debate remains regarding how to implement

technology as a tool for learning.

Summary. With a lack of empirical evidence in the research, the debate over the

effectiveness of technology integration continues (Claro et al., 2013; Donovan et al.,

2012; Larkin, 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). Many of the previous studies have

focused on a specific form of technology. Few studies have approached technology

integration from a systemic viewpoint. Several studies have identified the benefits of

technology from a social perspective (Chikasanda, 2013; Holland & Holland, 2014).

According to Rushby (2013), the use of artificial intelligence in computer-assisted

instruction began in 1971. Furthermore, Rushby noted that personal computers first

appeared around 1977, and they were supposed to revolutionize education. The impact

that computers have had on student achievement is still a much-debated topic in the

literature. One concern regarding technology involves the rate at which technology is

advancing (Riley, 2007; Rushby, 2013; Tabach, 2011). These authors noted that

technology is advancing faster than the schools’ implementation rate. Rushby (2013)
 45

referred to this as the technology lifecycle. These ever-shortening lifecycles may explain

why there is very little research that demonstrates a correlation between technology and

learning (Riley, 2011; Rushby, 2013).

According to some researchers, how humans learn has changed over time

(Andersen, 2011; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson, 2011). Claro (2013) noted that, as

a tool, technology is supporting traditional teaching practices. This application of

technology does not align with the science involving how students learn (Andersen,

2011).

Djebbari (2012) identified teachers as distributors of knowledge and students as

recipients of knowledge. In order for technology to become embedded in the curriculum,

the notion of the teacher in front of the classroom imparting knowledge on his or her

students must be altered to align with the science associated with learning (Djebbari,

2012).

When viewed systemically, technology integration affects how students learn,

how teachers learn to teach, and how the technology supports the school system. Much of

the research that has identified the lack of educational reform success, with regard to

technology, has focused on the teachers and professional development (Bennett & Maton,

2010; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson, 2011; Jones &

Healing, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010; Male & Pattinson, 2011; Reinhart et al., 2011;

Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; Smith, 2014). This has created both a renewed focus on, and

definition of, the digital divide.

Digital divide. Researchers have noted that the term digital divide entered into

common use in the 1990s (Kassam et al., 2013; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013; K. Williams,
 46

2013). Originally, the term carried a monolithic connotation. The digital divide first

distinguished between those who have new technologies (initially computers) and those

who did not have them (Gore, 1998; Kassam et al., 2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013). Since

the 1990s, the term has taken on additional meanings.

In a similar fashion as the word technology, the digital divide has become a

polysemous term. Some researchers have noted that the original definition, which

differentiated between those who had a computer and those who did not, still exists

Chelliah & Clarke, 2011). Other researchers have noted that the original digital divide,

which focused on access, is closing (Kassam et al., 2012; Parycek et al., 2011; Reinhart et

al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2013). Brown and Czerniewicz (2010) noted that the digital

divide is increasing. This discrepancy in the literature signifies a need to further examine

the digital divide.

Ritzhaupt et al. (2013) stated that the term is now a multilayered phenomenon.

Reinhart et al. (2011) identified a second digital divide. This second digital divide

focused on the use of technology. As with the first digital divide, this new divide is

diverging on demographics.

The extant literature has many studies regarding the differences between digital

natives and digital immigrants; terms coined by Prensky (2001a; b). The acceptance of

these two terms by other researchers has created a polarization of the terms. In other

words, if an individual falls under one term, they cannot also fit under the other (Brown

& Czerniewicz, 2010). Jones and Healing (2010) noted a paradox with the digital divide.

They noted that while some individuals of a generation are fixed, individuals from other

generations are required to change.

 47

The only constant with technology is change (Henderson, 2011). Kennedy et al.

(2010) stated that digital immigrants are using technology to teach digital natives.

Bennett and Maton (2010) identified the struggles digital immigrants are facing when

trying to teach to digital natives. Brown and Czerniewicz (2010) noted the polarizing

effect of these two terms. Prensky (2001a; b) stated that learning environments needed to

be more conducive to the learning needs of the technology driven, multisensory younger

people of today. Not all researchers agree with the dichotomy associated with the digital

natives and digital immigrants. Bennett and Maton (2010) identified a lack of research

regarding digital natives to support the characteristics associated with this generation.

Furthermore, they noted a significant variation in how young people utilize technology.

This suggests that digital natives may not be a homogenous generation (Yelland & Neal,

2013). As Brown and Czerniewicz (2010) stated, variation exists in the skill sets

associated with the digital native generation.

Bennett and Maton (2010) asserted that the discussions in the research regarding

the polarization of digital natives and digital immigrants have taken the form of an

“academic moral panic” (p. 328). Furthermore, they added that this moral panic uses

dramatic language to proclaim a need for profound change. Kennedy et al. (2010)

identified an understanding of how students’ use technology as an important change for

academia.

Ritzhaupt et al. (2013) stated that schools are perceived to be bridges to correct

social inequalities dictated by society. Henderson (2011) identified the home-school

divide. Henderson identified a gap regarding technology use at home and its use in

school. Henderson referred to this gap as the home-school divide. Henderson added that a
 48

growing divide exists between the rich literate practices used by young people in their

homes and the restricted practices that schools engage in.

Bennett, in Kennedy et al. (2010), identified three potential differences regarding

the Net Generation and their use of technology. These three potential differences include

socio-economic status, cultural/ethnic background, and gender and discipline

specialization. According to Kennedy et al. (2010), no significant difference existed in

use based on gender. However, the study conducted by Yelland and Neal (2013) found

that socioeconomic status and gender had an impact on digital skills. Kassam et al. (2013)

identified entertainment as the main use of technology for those in the lower SES. This

has led researchers to redefine the digital divide.

How students use technology has become the focus of a new digital divide.

Kassam et al. (2013) noted three distinct aspects of the new digital divide. They referred

to the first one as the “global divide” (Kassam et al., 2013, p. 215). The global divide

refers to the divergence of Internet access between industrialized and developing nations.

The second aspect is the “social divide” (Kassam et al., 2013, p. 215). The social divide

is the gap between the information rich and poor in each nation. Lastly, they identified a

“democratic divide” (Kassam et al., 2013, p. 216). The democratic divide reflects the

differences between those who do and those who do not use “digital resources to engage,

mobilize, and participate in public life” (Kassam et al., 2013, p. 216).

The research provides many viewpoints regarding technology, the digital divide,

and the impact those two have on academics. Yelland and Neal (2013) stated that simply

providing access to the technology is not enough. Smith (2014) noted that the technology

itself would not influence student learning. The only way for technology to influence
 49

learning is to embed the technology in the learning culture. Furthermore, Smith noted the

common practice of teachers to use technology to reinforce their existing pedagogical

practices.

This led Smith (2014) to identify three different pedagogies. These three

pedagogies are antiquated, classical, and 21st century. By identifying three pedagogies,

Smith came to the self-realization that technology does not change pedagogy. To change

pedagogy, teachers must integrate technology in a manner that transforms the antiquated

practices of yesterday to the trends of today. Some researchers have taken this to imply

that age is an important component of the new digital divide.

Age is another construct that has been associated with the new digital divide. This

supports Prensky’s (2001a) juxtaposition of digital natives and digital immigrants.

According to Prensky, age is the single biggest problem facing education. Bennett and

Maton (2010) do not perceive age as playing a role in the new digital divide. The data

presented by Brown and Czerniewicz (2010) demonstrated a negligible association

between age and ICT experience. According to the extant research, although age may

play a supporting actor role in the digital divide, age does not play the lead role.

One of the key roles associated with the digital divide involves social inclusion

(Kratzer & Lettl, 2008; Pengyi, 2013). According to Yelland and Neal (2013),

Warschauer reconceptualized the digital divide to include social inclusion. Researchers

that have focused on the social aspect related to the digital divide have found age to be a

factor (Kennedy et al., 2010). That is, when technology-based activities are studied, age,

rather than access to technology, becomes a significant factor.

 50

Summary. Based on the literature, the term digital divide has taken on several

meanings. Originally, the digital divide was a chasm, dividing those who had computers

from those who did not have them. When viewed in this manner, the digital divide

represents a dichotomy (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010; Yelland &

Neal, 2013). As technology became more accessible, the original definition became less

applicable, and a new definition surfaced.

The new definition incorporated the terms digital native and digital immigrant

(Prensky, 2001a; 2001b). Instead of dividing between those who had technology and

those who did not, this new definition attempted to use a generation as the dividing line

(Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010). Tapscott, in Brown and Czerniewicz (2010), identified

the Net Generation as the specific point that divided digital natives from digital

immigrants. As with the original definition, this new definition became a dichotomy,

rather than a continuum (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Kennedy et

al., 2010; Parycek et al., 2011). By defining the digital divide based on a generation, the

generation becomes homogenous. However, not all members of society who are born into

this generation embrace the characteristics that define the generation (Bennett & Maton,

2010).

Reinhart et al. (2011) identified a second level digital divide (SLDD). The

differences associated with technology use have become the partition for this new divide

(Reinhart et al., 2011). Furthermore, they identified five different forms of a digital

divide. These included school access, home access, school use, gender gap, and

generational gap. Access to the Internet was becoming the new feature of the digital

divide.
 51

Kassam et al. (2013) identified three broader aspects of a digital divide. These

were a global divide, social divide, and a democratic divide. The global divide refers to

the expansion of Internet access. Kassam et al. noted that the social divide was the gap

between the information rich and poor nations. Finally, the democratic divide is the

difference with regard to how individuals use digital resources to “engage, mobilize, and

participate in public life” (Kassam et al., 2013, p. 216).

Two significant differences exist between Reinhart et al. (2011) and Kassam et al.

(2013). First, Kassam et al. (2013) took a more global view with regard to access.

Second, Kassam et al. (2013) noted that a participation gap is replacing the access gap.

Therefore, as more societies connect to the Internet, participation will be the key attribute

of the digital divide (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010). Some researchers

have referred to this as social inclusion (Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Henderson, 2011;

Parycek et al., 2011; P. Williams, 2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013).

To ensure social inclusion is not the line of demarcation, educational leaders are

exploring methods for distributing computers, and Internet access, to all students. One

approach is through the implementation of one-to-one technology. Another approach

calls for the sharing of computers.

1:1 technology integration. One-to-one technology integration provides each

student with a laptop computer (Larkin, 2012). An ongoing debate exists regarding one-

to-one technology implementation and student achievement. A few of the studies noted

an increase in student achievement, while other studies noted no real change or a

decrease in achievement (Warschauer & Ames, 2010). One factor that continues to fuel

this debate is the metric being used in a study. These studies relied on surveys (Donovan
 52

et al., 2012; Keengwe et al., 2012; Larkin, 2012; Penuel, 2006), mind maps (Chang et al.,

2012), questionnaires (Claro et al., 2013; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012), experiments

(Warschauer & Ames, 2010), or anecdotal evidence (Larkin, 2012; Rosen & Beck-Hill,

2012). Many studies examined different contexts for which to implement one-to-one

technology.

Claro et al. (2013) noted that one-to-one technology is supporting traditional

teaching practices. This was a common theme in almost every study. Another common

theme was the role of a constructivist learning theory (Chang et al., 2012; Claro et al.,

2013; Penuel, 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012). This learning theory is associated with a

student-centered classroom. There appear to be some positive effects associated with one-

to-one integration. Rosen and Beck-Hill (2012) noted a reduction in absenteeism and

discipline referrals. Other studies have noted an increase in computer literacy and writing

(Penuel, 2006), and an increase in engagement in writing, reading, and multimedia use

(Keengwe et al., 2012). Other positive effects of technology integration include increased

data collection, including simulations and modeling (Hsu & Sharma, 2006), increase in

both computational and conceptual understanding (Bulut & Bulut, 2011; Kurz, 2011),

and mathematical graphing (House, 2011).

A few negative effects also surfaced. Claro et al. (2013) noted that computer

access might actually hinder achievement. This is of particular importance in lower

socioeconomic situations. Without proper parental guidance, technology is used for social

situations and gaming, not academics (Vigdor & Ladd, 2010; Warschauer & Ames,

2010). Other researchers noted that technology integration without an accompanying

professional development plan hindered teachers’ acceptance of the technology

 53

(Chikasanda et al., 2013; Courville, 2011b; Hodges & Prater, 2014; Riley, 2007; Sundeen

& Sundeen, 2013).

One alternative to a one-to-one technology approach is to share laptops with other

classes. In a study conducted by Larkin (2012), students who shared a laptop, which

Larkin refers to as a one-to-two approach, actually used the computer more. Larkin used

four different scenarios in his study. Class A had 1:1 access five days per week. Class B

had 1:2 access three days per week. Class C utilized a 1:2 access for five days per week

and Class D had 1:1 access for three days per week.

Each of these classes had access to the netbooks for 30 school days. According to

Larkin (2012), the two classes that utilized a 1:2 approach actually used the netbooks up

to 30% longer in the classrooms. This supports the claims from other researchers who

contend that it is the use of technology, not the access to technology, which provides the

academic benefits (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Donovan et al., 2012; Henderson, 2011;

Kassam et al., 2013; Kennedy et al., 2010; Larkin, 2012; Smith, 2014; Warschauer &

Ames, 2010).

Other alternatives to one-to-one technology include interactive whiteboards

(Saine, 2012) and mobiles (iPads, notebooks, smartphones, and ereaders) (Hodges &

Prater, 2014). In the literature, the heading Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) describes

how mobiles are grouped together. Interactive whiteboards allow teachers to record their

classroom lecture, either from dry erase boards or a dedicated Smartboard, and

disseminate the notes to their students via digital media.

Summary. The one laptop per child (OLPC) initiative was reportedly going to

lead the way regarding educational reform (Warschauer & Ames, 2010). The premise
 54

behind the program was that students would teach themselves how to use the laptops.

However, achievement scores have decreased because of technology not aligning with

pedagogy and curriculum (Warschauer & Ames, 2010). Furthermore, the differences

between SES uses of the technology became apparent (Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011;

Warschauer & Ames, 2010).

One-to-one technology integration is again gaining attention in research.

Although the one-to-one approach may eliminate access from the digital divide equation,

it continues to highlight the differences in which the different SESs use the technology

(Kassam et al., 2013; Smith, 2014). Kassam et al. (2013) noted that entertainment, not

academics, was the primary usage associated with low socioeconomic status. This may be

representative of the skills required to use technology in an engaging, meaningful manner

(Abbitt, 2011). Ritzhaupt et al. (2013) noted that with respect to skills and application,

the digital divide was widening.

According to the research, some agreement exists regarding the sociocultural

importance of technology (Chikasanda et al., 2013; Musawi, 2011). However, with

regard to who is most affected, there is still disagreement. Yelland and Neal (2013)

identified inequalities with digital skills, based on both gender and socioeconomic status.

Kennedy et al. (2010) noted differences regarding SES and culture/ethnicity, but found

no difference based on gender. A disagreement remains regarding whom, and to what

degree individuals are affected. Some researchers do agree that the impact is affecting an

individual’s ability to prepare for the 21st century workforce. Some researchers have

noted that when one-to-one technology is implemented successfully, individuals are

better prepared for a 21st century workforce (Keengwe et al., 2012; Reinhart et al., 2011).
 55

Partnership for 21st century skills. According to Partnership for 21st Century

Skills (P21) (2010), their mission is to prepare for 21st century readiness in K12

education by working collaboratively with educational institutions, businesses,

government leaders, and communities. P21 identified the 3Rs and 4Cs that are required if

every child is to develop the 21st century knowledge and skills to succeed in a global

economy. P21 (2010) defined the 3Rs as: “English, reading, and language arts;

mathematics; science; foreign languages; civics; government; economics; arts; history;

and geography” (p. 2). Furthermore, they defined the 4Cs as “critical thinking and

problem solving; communication, collaboration; and creativity and innovation” (P21,

2010, pp. 3 - 5).

P21 (2010) identified a gap between the knowledge and skills most students learn

in school and the knowledge and skills they will need in 21st century communities and

workplaces. Yelland and Neal (2013) noted inequalities in digital skills. These

inequalities included gender and socioeconomic status. Failure to address these

inequalities results in individuals being unprepared for 21st century employment.

Reinhart et al. (2011) identified sociocultural influences that influence the digital divide.

How technology is being used has been the focal point of many studies (Bennett

& Maton, 2010; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010; Reinhart et al.,

2011). Other studies examined the social implications of technology (Chelliah & Clarke,

2011; Kassam et al., 2013; Male & Pattinson, 2011; Parycek et al., 2011; P. Williams,

2013; Yelland & Neal, 2013). How technology is being utilized, and techologies social

implications, are a part of the 21st century skills that have been identified for

employment in the global marketplace.

 56

Saavedra and Opfer (2012) stated that employees are demanding fewer people

with basic skill sets. Furthermore, they identified seven survival skills that individuals

must possess to compete in the marketplace. These seven skills include critical thinking

and problem solving; collaboration and leadership; agility and adaptability; initiative; oral

and written communication skills; ability to access and analyze information; and curiosity

and imagination. Individuals must acquire these skills to be successful in primary,

secondary, and post-secondary education. Additionally, these skills are required in a

global economy. To gain a competitive advantage, students today must seek a college

degree.

Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010) provided their analysis of data regarding

educational distributions, by deciles, across household income. The lower three deciles

formed the lower class, the middle four deciles formed the middle class, and the upper

three deciles formed the upper class. Additionally, they divided each of the three classes

into high school dropouts, high school graduates, some college, Bachelor’s degree, and

graduate degree. All of the data was collected during 1970 and again in 2007.

In 1970, the lower-class percentages by academic achievement level were: high

school dropout (39%), high school graduate (22%), some college (19%), Bachelor’s

degree (16%), and graduate degree (13%) (Carnevale et al., 2010). The middle-class

percentages by academic achievement level were: high school dropout (46%), high

school graduate (60%), some college (53%), Bachelor’s degree (47%), and graduate

degree (46%) (Carnevale et al., 2010). Finally, the upper-class percentages were: high

school dropout (15%), high school graduate (18%), some college (28%), Bachelor’s

degree (37%), and graduate degree (41%) (Carnevale et al., 2010).

 57

By 2007, the lower-class percentages by academic achievement level were: high

school dropout (59%), high school graduate (35%), some college (29%), Associate’s

degree (20%), Bachelor’s degree (14%), and graduate degree (9%) (Carnevale et al.,

2010). The middle-class percentages by academic achievement level were: high school

dropout (33%), high school graduate (45%), some college (45%), Associate’s degree

(45%), Bachelor’s degree (38%), and graduate degree (30%) (Carnevale et al., 2010).

Finally, the upper-class percentages were: high school dropout (7%), high school

graduate (19%), some college (26%), Associate’s degree (35%), Bachelor’s degree

(48%), and graduate degree (61%) (Carnevale et al., 2010). These changes represent the

need for educational institutions to ensure they not only provide each individual with a

strong academic foundation, they must also prepare them to compete on the global stage.

Norman R. Augustine, in Atkinson (2012), noted that one-third of U.S. eighth-

graders do not receive a high school diploma. Furthermore, he stated that of those who do

receive a high school diploma, about 40 % do not go on to college. Finally, about half of

those who do begin college do not earn a bachelor’s degree. In essence, these individuals

are not prepared to enter a competitive job market.

To be competitive on the global stage requires a new skill set. Brusic and Shearer

(2014) emphasized the importance of life and career skills, learning and innovation skills,

and information, media, and technology skills required to be competitive in today’s

rapidly changing world economy. Brusic and Shearer noted the similarities between the

building blocks for literacy and the building blocks for 21st century learning. Just as

students must learn their ABCs before they can read and write, they must also understand
 58

the language of the 21st century skills (Brusic & Shearer, 2014). Students are more likely

to understand this language if it is taught at an early age.

Teaching these skills by rote is not the preferred method for learning them

(Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). Complex thinking, learning, and communication skills require

more demanding teaching methods than the traditional pedagogies. Saavedra and Opfer

noted that the outdated transmission model of education is ill suited for teaching 21st

century skills. Tucker (2014) supported this based on the mapping of the human mind.

Educators must implement effective teaching strategies based on the scientific insight

into how learning occurs. Employing these strategies will assist educators in closing the

gap between the skills learned in school and the skills and knowledge needed in the 21st

century workforce (Tucker, 2014). Furthermore, the skills learned in school and the skills

needed in the 21st century workforce are not mutually exclusive. These skill sets need to

be embedded in the school’s curriculum.

One way to embed the 21st century skills and knowledge into the high school

curriculum is through technology. Donovan et al. (2014) made reference to the

importance of students attaining both digital and visual literacy’s. Tucker (2014) noted

the importance of students using digital tools to solve real-world problems. Problem-

solving and critical thinking skills were identified by P21 (2010) as skills required in the

current job markets. Saavedra and Opfer (2012) identified how the interconnectedness of

the global economies provides the means by which individuals can communicate,

collaborate, and problem solve on a worldwide scale. With an infrastructure in place,

educators must ensure that all individuals have the skill sets to participate in the 21st

century workplace.
 59

One approach to ensuring all individuals have those skill sets is through the

implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative. Donovan et al. (2014) noted that one-to-

one laptop initiatives promote 21st century skills. According to the extant literature,

studies on correlation between technology integration and student achievement show

little, if any, gains. Donovan et al. (2014) cautioned this approach. They noted that a

different lens is required when viewing studies that involve technology. Furthermore, a

holistic viewpoint is required when examining studies involving technology. In other

words, technology must examine the whole picture, not the parts that make up the

picture.

Summary. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2010, 2011) has identified

specific skills required for a competitive job market. Saavedra and Opfer (2012) noted

seven survival skills. These skills include critical thinking and problem solving;

collaboration and leadership; agility and adaptability; initiative and entrepreneurialism;

oral and written communication; accessing and analyzing information; and curiosity and

imagination. With these skills comes a call for educational leaders to change the

classroom practices of teachers so they are prepared to teach these skills (Saavedra &

Opfer, 2012).

In a global market place, employees are looking for fewer people with basic skill

sets (Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). The interconnectedness of global economies, which is

enhanced by digital media, means that the 21st century workforce must be able to work

collaboratively and problem solve with individuals who are thousands of miles away

(Brusic & Shearer, 2014; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Tucker, 2014). In a global

marketplace, teachers must not only prepare students for academic success, they must
 60

also ensure they have the skills that are required for employment in an often unknown

landscape (Brusic & Shearer, 2014).

Common Core State Standards. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21)

(2010, 2011) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) focus on the skills and

knowledge students need in order to meet college and career readiness (Applebee, 2013;

Caltobiano, 2013; Kozdras & Day, 2013; Richardson & Eddy, 2011). According to the

research, a debate remains regarding the CCSS. Kozdras and Day (2013) noted that the

CCSS are one of the best innovations to happen in a long time. Roberts et al. (2012)

identified the role technology should play as being one of the factors that differentiate the

CCSS from the earlier state standards. Grindon (2014) noted that the CCSS are either

confining or flexible, depending on the lens one uses to view them.

Applebee (2013) related the shaping of the CCSS to the history of reform. In

1992, the U.S. Department of Education cancelled funding for a standards project in

English Language Arts (ELA) because of its constructivist view of curriculum and

instruction. That constructivist view is currently guiding new literacies (Roberts et al.,

2012). Grindon (2014) suggested that the 21st century skills have defined literacy in a

myriad of ways. Grindon stated that teachers must help students deconstruct the world

and words around them so they have the ability to construct words and worlds of their

own. Roberts et al. (2012) described the new literacies as deictic. This implies that these

new literacies are contextually dependent on time and place.

These new literacies are placed under the digital literacy umbrella. According to

the research, this is creating a techno centric approach to technology integration (Roberts

et al., 2012). According to these authors, techno centric involves using technology to
 61

teach technology. Furthermore, these authors noted that technology should be utilized for

communication, collaboration, and synthesizing ideas. The CCSS approach to technology

involves embedding the technology into the curriculum rather than treating it as a stand-

alone content (Roberts et al., 2012).

Grindon (2014) identified the role technology could play in critical literacy. In

short, Stevens and Bean, cited in Grindon (2014), defined critical literacy as “…active

questioning of the stance found within, behind, and among texts” (p. 252). Roberts et al.

(2012) noted the near complete lack of restriction regarding Internet content means there

is a large amount of inaccurate information available. Both the CCSS and the Partnership

for 21st Century Skills (P21) (2011) have addressed this concern. In essence, to be

college and career ready, students need an understanding of how to determine the validity

of the information they find on the Internet.

Zhang, Duke, and Jiminez (2011) presented the WWWDOT framework for

elementary aged students. The purpose of this framework is to assist students in

evaluating the quality of the content found on the Internet. The framework consists of six

dimensions: 1) Who wrote this and what are their credentials? 2) Why did someone write

it? 3) When did they write it? 4) Does it help meet my needs? 5) How was the website

organized? 6) Create a to-do list for future references (Zhang et al., 2011). According to

these authors, elementary grade students were the focus for the six dimensions.

Furthermore, evaluating content is included in both the P21 (2010) and CCSS (2014).

Caltabiano (2013) identified a fourth R with regard to education. This fourth R

focused on real-world application. Like the WWWDOT framework, Caltabiano noted

that the CCSS place an emphasis on the ability to acquire information, conduct research,
 62

evaluate information, synthesize information, think critically, and weigh conflicting

viewpoints. With a plethora of information available via the Internet, students must be

able to validate the information they find. This suggests that the Internet is both a tool

and a skill.

Summary. At one time, standards were a function of each state. According to

Applebee (2013), by allowing each state to create standards, a student could be proficient

in one state and barely passing in another. One of the driving forces behind the CCSS

was to provide students with the skills and knowledge required to be college and career

ready (Kozdras & Day, 2013). The original college and career readiness standards

focused more on broad accomplishments than they did on the supporting skills

(Applebee, 2013).

Kozdras and Day (2013) stated that the CCSS were the best innovation to happen

in a long time. They added that students will participate in real-world experiences and

this will foster “a generation of incisive thinkers and lucid writers” (p. 30). Caltabiano

(2013) associated an ability to think, evaluate, and problem solve, which are integral parts

of college readiness, with the CCSS. Finally, the CCSS are explicitly introducing

technology into the curriculum, which in turn, is redefining pedagogy (Roberts et al.,

2012).

Pedagogy. According to the literature, one of the greatest challenges in pedagogy

is the transformation from a teacher-centered environment to a student-centered one

(Djebbari, 2012; Monk et al., 2013; Philip & Garcia, 2013; Smith, 2014). Gano (2012)

related the current transmission model of education, which is a teacher-centered

approach, with instructivism. In this model, the teacher is the distributor of knowledge
 63

and the learner is the recipient of knowledge (Djebbari, 2012; Gano, 2011; Monk et al.,

2013). Philip and Garcia (2013) also noted that a “relic” from the pre-digital era is

guiding students in today’s classrooms (p. 300). This supports the claims of other

researchers who have noted that digital immigrants are teaching digital natives (Bennett

& Maton, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2010; Prensky, 2001a, 2001b). However, the dividing

line between digital natives and digital immigrants is not well defined (Brown &

Czerniewicz, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010; Parycek et al., 2011; Reinhart et al., 2011).

Student-centered classrooms align with social constructivism (Monk et al., 2013).

Furthermore, these authors noted that the student-centered classroom is a pedagogical

approach. Djebbari (2012) referred to this approach as interactive pedagogy. Lawrance,

cited in Djebbari (2012), stated that interactive pedagogy provide students with “self-

paced, student controlled, individual learning opportunities” (para. 3). This new form of

pedagogy, which Djebbari labeled e-teaching, is the act of teaching with technology to

enhance student learning. Kuhn and Dempsey (2011) noted a very distinct difference

between teaching technology and using technology to teach.

Pedagogical approaches affect how teachers adapt new technologies in the

classroom (Monk et al., 2013). Much of the focus in the literature has been on technology

integration as a means of supporting the traditional teaching model (Chikasanda et al.,

2013; Claro et al., 2013; Rohaan et al., 2012; Shirley et al., 2011; Warschauer & Ames,

2010). When viewed through the lens of current teaching practices, technology

integration fails to increase student achievement.

For technology integration to be successful, teachers need to collaborate with

colleagues and students to identify effective uses of these new tools (Iversen &
 64

Brodersen, 2008; Djebbari, 2012). Braunschweig’s ADDIE model (Figure 1) is one

means of creating interactive lessons. The ADDIE model is comprised of five, sequential

components. The first step involves analyzing. The purpose of this step is to identify the

needs and constraints of the lesson. The next step is design. Here is where the learning

activities and assessments are chosen and matched to the methods and media. The third

step is called develop. The goal of this step is to create the lessons and formative

assessments. The fourth step is implementation. This is when the plan is put into action.

The final step is evaluation. During this step, the next implementation is prepared by

evaluating all levels of the original plan (Djebbari, 2012; Soto, 2013; Tiantong &

Teemuangsai, 2013).

Figure 1. ADDIE Instructional Design Model – All phases highlighted (Braunschweig,

2014).

According to the research, schools are not matching technology with a specific

learning outcome (Djebbari, 2012; Gano, 2011; Monk et al., 2013; Philip & Garcia,

2013). Some researchers have noted that instead of aligning the learning outcomes with

the technology, current pedagogical processes are attempting to align technology with
 65

learning outcomes and pedagogical approaches (Hodges & Prater, 2014; Rohaan et al.,

2012; Monk et al., 2013). This has led to an educational system that is teaching

technology rather than teaching the content with the aid of the technology

Like the fire triangle, which states you need oxygen, heat, and fuel to create a fire,

technology integration requires three components. According to Avidov-Ungar and

Eshet-Alkalai (2014), these three constructs include technological knowledge,

pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Also like the fire triangle, a

fourth component bonds the other three together. For the fire, a chemical reaction must

occur between the three components. For technology integration, this fourth component

is the teacher’s ability to combine technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and

pedagogical content knowledge (Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-Alkalai, 2014).

Mishra and Koehler proposed the technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge

(TPCK) framework in 2006 (Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-Alkalai, 2014; Thomas, Herring,

Redmond, & Smaldino, 2013). The TPCK framework (Figure 2) is comprised of seven

types of knowledge (Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-Alkalai, 2014). Successful technology

integration requires teachers to understand not only how the three constructs function

individually, they must also understand the dyadic relationships between the three

constructs and how these seven types of knowledge work together (Avidov-Ungar &

Eshet-Alkalai, 2014). The following is a brief description of each of the TPCK types of

knowledge (adapted from Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

The three individual types of knowledge include content knowledge (CK),

pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK). Content knowledge

involves the knowledge of the actual subject matter. Content knowledge includes the
 66

knowledge of “central facts, concepts, theories, and procedures within a given field”

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1026). Pedagogical knowledge includes an understanding of

the processes and practices involved in teaching and learning. Holistically, Pedagogical

knowledge includes an understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental theories

regarding learning. Technological knowledge involves an understanding of computers,

such as software and hardware, and it includes the skills required to operate specific

pieces of technology (i.e. interactive whiteboards and graphing utilities). Understanding

each of these three types of knowledge is essential, although it will not guarantee success.

Teachers must also understand how these three types of knowledge function at their

intersections.

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is the understanding of applying the best

approach to fit the content. Mishra and Koehler (2006) noted “PCK is concerned with the

representation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what

makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’ prior knowledge, and

theories of epistemology” (p. 1027). Ceylan et al. (2014) stated that the most important

barrier to technology integration is the teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge.

Pedagogical content knowledge is located at the overlap of pedagogical knowledge and

content knowledge (Figure 2).

Technological content knowledge (TCK) involves an understanding of how

technology and content are “reciprocally related” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028). As

future technologies become available to teachers, teachers must understand how to

inextricably link the technology with the content. According to some researchers,

technology is providing students with opportunities to construct their own understanding

 67

(Gano, 2011; Hora & Holden, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Monk et al., 2013). This is

one of the focal points of the paradigm shift from teacher-centered classrooms to student-

centered classrooms.

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) not only includes an understanding

of how various technologies can be used in teaching and learning, but also how teaching

might change as a result of using particular technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Some researchers stated that the misalignment associated with older teaching methods

and current learning processes have led to failed reform movements (Rushby, 2013;

Shirley et al., 2011; P. Williams, 2013). Some of the research has focused on how

technology integration is primarily supporting older teaching methods (Becker, 2011;

Claro et al., 2013; Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Monk et al., 2013; Smith, 2014). Other

researchers note that technology is changing how teachers teach (Bulut & Bulut, 2011;

Crowe & Ma, 2010; House, 2011; Hsu & Sharma, 2006; Kurz, 2011).

Finally, viewing all three knowledge types simultaneously is the purpose of

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It

includes an understanding of how any change in one of the three types of knowledge

affects the other two (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). According to Mishra and Koehler

(2006), “TPCK represents a class of knowledge that is central to teachers’ work with

technology” (p. 1029). Avidov-Ungar and Eshet-Alkalai (2014) noted that the teachers’

ability to combine these three types of knowledge is critical for technology integration.

TPCK is not only changing how teachers teach, it is also changing how professional

development is conducted and how teaching institutions teach technology (Avidov-Ungar

& Eshet-Alkalai, 2014; Thomas et al., 2013).

 68

One change associated with how teachers teach involves the change from a

teacher-centered classroom of instruction to student-centered classroom (Crowe & Ma,

2010; Penuel, 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Rosen & Manny-Ikan, 2011). In a

teacher-centered classroom, teachers transmit knowledge to the students (Monk et al.,

2013). However, in a student-centered classroom, the teacher interacts with the students

and provides them with opportunities to construct their knowledge (Djebbari, 2012).

The literature refers to this as a learning community (Monk et al., 2013). One of

the tenets of a professional learning community is a focus on student achievement

(DuFour et al., 2008; Hsu & Sharma, 2006). According to DuFour et al. (2008), learning

communities create opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively and analyze data.

With a focus on student achievement, teachers can identify the best practices that

promote learning at their institutions.

This paradigm shift, from teaching to learning, is requiring educators to redefine

pedagogy. The Time to Know (T2K) program is a pedagogical perspective designed for a

teacher-driven, student-centered, computer-learning environment (Rosen & Beck-Hill,

2012). The program consists of five main components (Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Rosen

& Manny-Ikan, 2011). These components include an infrastructure, an interactive

yearlong core curriculum, digital teaching platform (DTP), pedagogical support, and

technical support.
 69

Figure 2. The TPACK Image (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by

tpack.org).

Summary. The teacher-centered classroom has dominated the educational

system. Monk et al. (2013) identified this as the standard transmission model of teaching.

In a similar fashion, Djebbari (2012) mentioned that teachers were distributors of

knowledge and the students were recipients of that knowledge. Gano (2011) referred to

this teaching method as instructivism. Technology is not only influencing both pedagogy

and content, it is also providing researchers with a new view into the neuroscience of

learning. This, in turn, is affecting the creation, acquisition, and transfer of knowledge

(Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-Alkalai, 2014).

 70

There is a call in the literature to move from the teacher-centered model of

instruction to the student-centered model of knowledge construction (Monk et al., 2013;

Phillip & Garcia, 2013). Under this constructivism approach to learning, the teacher acts

more like a guide than a dispenser of knowledge (Gano, 2011). Students become

architects of their own learning (Monk et al., 2013). Philip and Garcia (2013) referred to

this as a pedagogical shift from a didactic teacher-centered model to a participatory

student-centered one. Furthermore, Andersen (2011) identified this approach as

personalized learning. The key to creating student-centered, personalized learning lies

with the teacher’s ability to align new technologies with pedagogical practices.

Summary.

Within this chapter, the researcher identified six common themes from the

literature review that are affecting education. The six themes include past and present

school reform; technology integration; the digital divide; Partnership for 21st Century

skills (2010, 2011); Common Core State Standards; and pedagogy. The fabric of our

educational system has all six themes interwoven into it.

Kessinger (2011) identified seven initiatives regarding educational reform. These

initiatives include NDEA of 1958, ESEA of 1965, NAEP, A Nation at Risk, America

2000, Goals 2000, and NCLB. One common theme throughout these seven initiatives has

been a focus on educating all students. Each of these initiatives has been instrumental in

guiding the direction of the educational system.

Student successes on standardized tests are increasing the pressure on

administrators to find ways to gain a competitive advantage (NCLB, 2001; Rushby,

2013). One method that has been common in the literature involves technology
 71

integration. Studies exist that have focused on specific types of technology. These studies

have included computers (House, 2011; Penuel, 2006; Rushby, 2013), Computer Algebra

Systems (Bulut & Bulut, 2011), handheld data collection devices (Shirley et al., 2011),

calculators (Crowe & ma, 2010), and laptop computers (Chang et al., 2012; Claro et al.,

2013; Donovan et al., 2012; Keengwe, 2012; Larkin, 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010).

Many of the studies regarding technology integration have been inconclusive.

Waxman et al. (2013) noted an increase in student achievement and graduation rates.

Bulut and Bulut (2011) found that technology improves conceptual understanding. House

(2011) identified an increase in critical thinking. However, Kurz (2011) stated that even

with technology, students are not learning math. Larkin (2012) also noted no or very little

increase in achievement. Research has identified other positive attributes of technology.

Keengwe et al. (2012) noted an increase in engagement in writing, reading, and media.

Penuel (2006) identified positive effects on computer literacy and writing.

According to the literature, two main reasons exist for the lack of empirical

evidence regarding technology implementation. The first is a lack of professional

development regarding how to embed technology into the curriculum and align it with

the curriculum (Hodges & Prater, 2014). The second reason identified a lack of

pedagogical changes to align with the technology (Chikasanda et al., 2013; Gan0, 2011;

Rohaan et al., 2012). According to Monk et al. (2013), pedagogical approaches are

affecting how teachers adapt new technologies. Philip and Garcia (2013) stated that

education has focused on singular devices, rather than a more holistic engagement of

technologies.
 72

The ADDIE model (Djebbari, 2012) provides teachers with a framework for

implementing interactive pedagogy. According to Djebbari (2012), interactive pedagogy

is transforming classrooms into “technology-enhanced learning environments” (para. 3).

In a similar manner, the TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) framework provides teachers

with the information they need to more effectively align technology with pedagogy.

Based on the literature, aligning technology with pedagogy, and transitioning from a

teacher-centered classroom to a student-centered classroom, are key components to

embedding technology into the curriculum (Gano, 2011; Holland, 2014; Mims-Word,

2012; Monk et al., 2013).

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2010) and the Common Core State

Standards are offering administrators guidance with transforming the educational system.

According to Applebee (2013), the CCSS will ensure that students have the requisite

knowledge and skills to be college and career ready in a rapidly changing global

landscape. One item shared by both P21 and the CCSS is the role technology should play

in the classroom. However, the digital divide is resurfacing because of technology in the

classroom (Kennedy et al., 2010; Reinhart et al., 2011; Yelland & Neal, 2013).

In Chapter 3, the researcher will present the research methodology chosen for this

study. The researcher chose a quantitative methodology because it aligned with the

causal-comparative nature of this research. There are two reasons for choosing a causal-

comparative study. First, the researcher could not randomly assign participants into

groups. Second, the researcher is examining whether a difference occurred between two

samples, and is not looking to identify a cause-and-effect relationship.

 73

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

Since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and President

Obama’s Race to the Top initiative, school districts have been examining methods to

increase student achievement on standardized tests. According to the extant literature,

one approach employed by school districts involves the integration of technology into the

classrooms (Roberts et al., 2012). The purpose of this causal comparative study is to

examine the effect that the implementation of a one-to-one technology approach has on

student achievement scores on the New England Common Assessment Program

(NECAP) test. Since this is a causal-comparative study, the data analysis will focus on

the difference between the assessment scores of students who attended a one-to-one

school and the assessment scores of those who attended a traditional school.

The purpose of this chapter is to revisit the problem statement and the research

questions that are guiding this research. In this chapter, the researcher will present the

research methodology and design. Furthermore, in Chapter 3, the researcher includes a

description of the sample and population, as well as discusses the instrument chosen for

this research. Additionally, this chapter lists the data collection and analysis procedures.

This chapter concludes with an examination of ethical considerations, limitations, and

delimitations as they relate to this study.

Statement of the Problem

It was not known whether a one-to-one technology integration initiative improved

student achievement on the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) tests.

This study focused on the differences in achievement scores between students who
 74

attended a one-to-one school and those students who attended a traditional school. Many

studies exist regarding technology. Some of the researchers focused on the type and

frequency of the technology used (Bulut & Bulut, 2011; Galligan et al., 2010; Hsu &

Sharma, 2006). Other researchers have focused on the teacher’s comfort level regarding

the technology and the frequency of its classroom usage (Crowe & Ma, 2010; Delen &

Bulut, 2011; Donovan et al., 2012). Still others have examined the correlation between

technology use and student achievement on standardized tests (Delen & Bulut, 2011;

House, 2011). Many of the studies from the latter have primarily focused on mathematics

achievement scores (Bulut & Bulut, 2011; Crowe & Ma, 2010; Galligan et al., 2010;

House, 2011; Kurz, 2011; Shirley et al., 2011).

This study examined whether one-to-one technology integration can improve the

student’s understanding of reading, writing, and mathematics. An improved

understanding of mathematics, reading, and writing will be indicated by higher

achievement scores on the NECAP tests from those students who attended a one-to-one

school from those students who attended a traditional school.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Many studies examining the relationship between achievement scores on

standardized tests and technology use exist. The majority of these studies have

approached the research from the teacher’s perspective, or more appropriately, the ability

of the teacher to implement the technology (Abbitt, 2011; Chikasanda et al., 2013;

Holland & Holland, 2014; Rohaan et al., 2012). Furthermore, many of the previous

studies focused on a single content area, such as mathematics (Bulut & Bulut, 2011;

Crowe & Ma, 2010; Galligan et al., 2010; House, 2011; Kurz, 2011; Shirley et al., 2011),
 75

science (Hsu & Sharma, 2006), or literacy (Donovan et al., 2014; Henderson, 2011;

Keengwe et al., 2012; Parycek et al., 2011).

This study focused on the differences in achievement scores between one-to-one

schools and traditional high schools. One-to-one schools are schools that provide a laptop

to each student (Larkin, 2012). Traditional schools do not provide a laptop to each

student.

Three research questions guided this study. The research questions are

specifically targeting the three content areas (reading, writing, and mathematics) on the

NECAP assessment.

R1: Is there a difference in the student achievement scores on the NECAP

mathematics test between students who were engaged in a one-to-one

technology school versus students who attended a traditional school?

H1: Students who participated in a one-to-one technology school will demonstrate

statistically significant higher achievement scores on the NECAP mathematics

test than those who participated in a traditional school.

H01: No statistically significant difference exists between the NECAP mathematics

test achievement scores of students who participated in a one-to-one

technology school and those who attended a traditional school.

R2: Is there a difference in the student achievement scores on the NECAP reading

test between students who were engaged in a one-to-one technology school

versus students who attended a traditional school?

 76

H2: Students who participated in a one-to-one technology school will demonstrate

statistically significant higher achievement scores on the NECAP reading test

than those who participated in a traditional school.

H02: No statistically significant difference exists between the NECAP reading test

achievement scores of students who participated in a one-to-one technology

school and those who attended a traditional school.

R3: Is there a difference in the student achievement scores on the NECAP writing

test between students who were engaged in a one-to-one technology school

versus students who attended a traditional school?

H3: Students who participated in a one-to-one technology school will demonstrate

statistically significant higher achievement scores on the NECAP writing test

than those who participated in a traditional school.

H03: No statistically significant difference exists between the NECAP writing test

achievement scores of students who participated in a one-to-one technology

school and those who attended a traditional school.

The researcher chose the NECAP test for this study because it represents the

standardized test currently in use in the New England area. The researcher lives and

works in the New England area and is familiar with this instrument. Furthermore, there

have been extensive psychometric analyses on this instrument.

Research Methodology

This study examined the effectiveness that one-to-one technology has on

increasing students’ achievement results on a standardized test. Because this study

utilized data from a standardized test, and the researcher conducted a statistical analysis
 77

of that data, a quantitative research methodology appeared to be the correct choice.

Additionally, with a population sample size greater than 30, a quantitative approach is

justified.

Another attribute of this study that lends itself toward a quantitative methodology

involves hypothesis testing. A quantitative methodology focuses on analyzing data to

accept or reject a null hypothesis (Arghode, 2012). By contrast, a qualitative

methodology searches for a meaning that people associate with a phenomenon or process

(Arghode, 2012).

Dobrovolny and Fuentes (2008) stated that both quantitative and qualitative

evaluations involve some aspect of decision-making. One key factor that can influence

decision-making is the researcher’s ontological perspective. A qualitative approach views

reality as an individualistic construct, while a quantitative approach views reality as a

constant where everyone perceives it in a similar manner. Arghode (2012) stated that a

quantitative research worldview believes there exists a single measurable, observable,

and provable truth.

Since the researcher will answer the research questions by conducting a statistical

analysis of the data, this study aligned with a quantitative worldview. Furthermore,

detaching the researcher from the observed provides a more succinct presentation of the

findings (Yilmaz, 2013).

Research Design

This study will utilize a nonexperimental, causal-comparative design. The

researcher examined other research designs in an effort to determine the most appropriate

design that would allow the researcher to utilize the data from the NECAP assessments to
 78

answer the research questions. A correlation study was not appropriate for this study as a

relationship between variables was not the main focus (Trochim, 2006). Additionally,

since the data for this study is from two different samples, an analysis would not be

feasible to correlate, as there are many variables.

Two reasons the researcher ruled out an experimental research design existed.

According to Trochen (2006), a true experiment involves random sampling combined

with the manipulation of one variable. The researcher then examines how manipulating

the independent variable causes a change in the dependent variable. A quasiexperiment is

similar to a true experiment except the researcher could not randomly assign participants

to groups. Because the researcher could not manipulate the independent variable, a cause-

and-effect relationship could not be determined.

For this study the researcher could not randomly assign students to groups, as that

was a function of where the students lived, so a non-experimental, causal-comparative

study was chosen (Liang, Fulmer, Majerich, Clevenstine, & Howanski, 2012; Schenker &

Rumrill, 2004). Without the ability to randomly group students, this study can only

measure the magnitude of the differences in achievement scores between students who

attended a one-to-one school and those students who attended a traditional school.

According to Schenker and Rumrill (2004), measuring the magnitude of differences is

one of the primary reasons for conducting a causal-comparative design study.

Additionally, Schenker and Rumrill stated that researchers could not make inferences if

the researcher did not manipulate the independent variable. Therefore, without the ability

to manipulate the independent variable, and the inability to randomly assign students to
 79

groups, the researcher could not conclude whether the independent variable affected the

dependent variable. Therefore, causation was not the purpose of this study.

The independent variable for this study was the teaching approach employed by

these two schools. Present in this study are two different teaching approaches. The first

teaching approach involves the implementation of one-to-one technology integration. The

second teaching approach involves a more traditional technology program. The

dependent variable for this study will be the student achievement scores on the three

NECAP tests (reading, mathematics, and writing) from the 2013-14 teaching year.

The states of New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont annually

conduct the NECAP assessments. The number of points earned compared to the total

number of points available determines the raw score. A linear transformation converts the

raw scores to scaled scores. Measured Progress (2014) noted the advantage of the scaled

scores over the raw scores is that scaled scores are comparable from one year to another

while raw scores are not.

This study utilized archival data from the 2013-14 teaching year. The data

includes each student’s scaled score. These scores ranged from 00 to 80 for the reading

and mathematics assessments. The range for the writing assessment was 1 to 4. For the

reading and mathematics assessment, the student’s grade level precedes the student’s

scaled score. For example, the maximum score for an 11th grade student on the reading

and mathematics assessment is 1180. The maximum score for the writing assessment is 4.

The null hypotheses for each research question will be accepted or rejected based

on the calculation of the t statistic. For this study, the researcher will be examining two

samples: One sample is from a school that implemented a one-to-one technology

 80

approach and the other sample is from a traditional school. From School A, the researcher

analyzed 273 reading scores, 272 mathematics scores, and 273 writing scores. From

School B the researcher assessed 156 scores in each of the three content areas.

A power analysis was completed using G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, &

Buchner, 2007). The results indicated a minimum sample size of 108. Furthermore, the

results of the power analysis indicated that the minimum sample size for group 1 (School

A) was 68 and the minimum sample size for group 2 (School B) was 40. For this study,

the sample size was 429 for reading and writing. The sample size for mathematics was

428.

Population and Sample Selection

The focus of this study was on two high schools in the New England area. One of

the high schools (School A) has implemented one-to-one technology. The other high

school (School B) is a traditional high school (non one-to-one). These two high schools

(School A and School B) have similar demographics. In these two schools, 11th grade

students are required to complete the NECAP tests in reading, writing, and mathematics.

This study utilized the data from the 2013/14 testing year.

The population represented by this study includes all 11th grade high school

students in the state of New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont. According

to Measured Progress (2014), during the 2013/14 testing year there were 10,302 students

tested in reading, 10,469 students tested in mathematics, and 10,267 students tested in

writing. During this same testing year, the two schools tested approximately 429 students

in reading, 429 students in writing, and 428 students in mathematics. This value
 81

represents the number of students from the two schools that were in the 11th grade. This

study will examine the data for all students.

For this study approximately 90% (386 out of 429) of the students tested were

White, approximately 12% of the students (50 out of 429) tested received special

education services (IEPs or 504s), and approximately 22% of the students (93 out of 429)

were defined as economically disadvantaged. Finally, approximately 228 males and 201

females were tested at these two schools during the 2013/14 testing year.

With statistical power set at 0.8, a power analysis for two samples was conducted

for a one-tailed t test. The effect size was set at 0.5 and the significance level was

established at 0.05 (See Appendix G for more details regarding the power analysis). The

results of the power analysis indicated a minimum sample size of 108. Furthermore, the

minimum sample size for group 1 (School A) is 68 while the minimum sample size for

group 2 (School B) is 40. This study analyzed the assessment results for approximately

429 students in reading and writing. This study also analyzed the results for 428 students

in mathematics.

Instrumentation

The data collection instrument for this study was the New England Common

Assessment Program (NECAP) test results. Students complete this assessment during the

fall season of their junior year. According to Measured Progress (2014), this assessment

provides educators with data regarding a student’s progress and learning towards meeting

the grade span expectations (GSE) linked to the 10th grade. The NECAP assessments use

an interval scale to indicate where a student is meeting the GSEs. The scaled scores (SS)
 82

range from 00 to 80. The number(s) that precede the SS indicate the student’s grade level.

Therefore, an 11th grade student can score between an 1100 and an 1180.

Student results for the reading and mathematics assessments are classified into

one of four achievement levels: Substantially Below Proficient (1100 ≤ SS ≤ 1133),

Partially Proficient (1134 ≤ SS ≤ 1139), Proficient (1140 ≤ SS ≤ 1151), and Proficient

with Distinction (1152 ≤ SS ≤ 1180). The writing assessment uses the same four

achievement levels. However, the scores range from 1 to 4.

This test is comprised of three sections: reading, writing, and mathematics.

According to the technical reports (Measured Progress, 2014), between eight and nine

test forms exist. The data from the NECAP assessment are public record and available on

the appropriate New England states’ Department of Education websites.

Each question on the NECAP assessment aligns to a specific Grade Span

Expectation. Some questions may assess more than one Grade Span Expectation. The

question formats used on the NECAP assessment include multiple choice, short answer,

constructed response, and writing prompt. In addition to the formats, questions are

structured using both common and matrix items.

All students take common items and they are the only questions that are graded.

According to Measured Progress (2014), the matrix items are either new items or

equating items. The new items are included in the test for field-testing purposes. Equating

items link one testing year to the results of the previous year. Each student answers field-

testing and equating items, though they are indistinguishable from the common items.

In addition to question formats, field-testing, and equating items, the NECAP test

measures Depth of Knowledge (DOK). The reading and mathematics tests measures
 83

DOK on three levels. The writing test assesses at a level 3 DOK. Measured Progress

(2014) provided the following definitions for the three levels on the reading test:

Level 1 (Recall):

This level requires students to receive or recite facts or to use simple skills or

abilities. Oral reading that does not include analysis of the text as well as basic

comprehension of a text is included. Items require only a shallow understanding

of text presented and often consist of verbatim recall from text or simple

understanding of a single word or phrase. (Measured Progress, 2014, p. 8)

Level 2 (Skill/Concept):

This level includes the engagement of some mental processing beyond recalling

or reproducing a response; it requires both comprehension and subsequent

processing of text or portions of text. Intersentence analysis of inference is

required. Some important concepts are covered but not in a complex way.

(Measured Progress, 2014, p. 8)

Level 3 (Strategic Thinking):

This level requires students to go beyond the text; however, they are still required

to show understanding of the ideas in the text. Students may be encouraged to

explain, generalize, or connect ideas. Standards and items involve reasoning and

planning. Students must be able to support their thinking. Items may involve

abstract theme identification, inference across an entire passage, or application of

prior knowledge. Items may also involve more superficial connections between

texts. (Measured Progress, 2014, p. 8)

 84

Measured Progress (2014) provided the following definitions for the three levels on the

mathematics test:

Level 1 (Recalling Information and Carrying Out Simple Procedures): “This

level requires the recall of a fact, definition, term, or simple procedure; the

application of a formula; or the performance of a straight algorithmic procedure.

Items at this level may require students to demonstrate a rote response”

(Measured Progress, 2014, p. 11).

Level 2 (Skill/Concept): “This level requires mental processing beyond that of a

simple habitual response. These items often require students to make some

decisions about how to approach a problem” (Measured Progress, 2014, p. 11).

Level 3 (Strategic Thinking, Reasoning, Planning, Drawing Conclusions, and

Using Concepts and Evidence):

This level requires students to develop a plan or sequence of steps. These items

are more complex and abstract than the items at the previous two levels. These

items may also have more than one possible answer and may require students to

use evidence, make conjectures, or justify their answers. (Measured Progress,

2014, p. 11)

The 2013-14 reading tests were comprised of 36 multiple-choice questions and

nine constructed-response questions. Measured Progress (2014) listed the following

percentages regarding depth of knowledge:

Level 1: 2013-14 (18%)

Level 2: 2013-14 (79%)

Level 3: 2013-14 (3%)

 85

The mathematics test contains four content strands. Measured Progress (2014)

lists the strands as numbers and operations, geometry and measure, functions and algebra,

and data, statistics, and probability. In addition to these four content strands, the GSEs

also assess problem solving, reasoning, connections, and communication.

The mathematics test was comprised of 32 multiple-choice questions, 16 short-

answer one questions (these are worth one point), eight short answer two questions (these

are worth two points), and six constructed-response questions. Measured Progress (2014)

listed the following percentages regarding depth of knowledge:

Level 1: 2013-14 (30%)

Level 2: 2013-14 (68%)

Level 3: 2013-14 (2%)

Measured Progress (2014) identified six content area standards for the writing

test. These included writing in response to literary text, writing in response to

informational text, report writing, procedural writing, persuasive writing, and reflective

writing. Each 11th grade student responded to one common writing prompt and then

either one matrix-reporting prompt or one field-test prompt. One hundred percent of the

writing test assesses at a level 3 depth of knowledge. Measured Progress (2014) defines a

level 3 DOK in writing as

This level requires some higher-level mental processing. Students are engaged in

developing compositions that include multiple paragraphs. These compositions

may include complex sentence structure and may demonstrate some synthesis and

analysis. Students show awareness of their audience and purpose through focus,

organization, and the use of appropriate compositional elements. The use of

 86

appropriate compositional elements includes such things as addressing

chronological order in a narrative or including supporting facts and details in an

informational report. (Measured Progress, 2014, p. 15)

Validity

Bunce, VandenPlas, Neiles, and Flens (2010) defined validity as the ability of an

instrument to defend the inferences made from the instruments scores in relation to the

construct being measured. They defined four types of validity: content, criterion-

referenced, construct, and concurrent. Y. Kim (2009) stated that validation of an

instrument allows for generalizability and consists of six techniques. These techniques

include content validity, pretest, pilot test, manipulation validity, reliability, and construct

validity. Hathcoat (2013) stated that tests are neither valid nor invalid; it is the use and

interpretation of the scores that encompass validity. Furthermore, Hathcoat noted that

ontological and epistemological characteristics delineate the semantics associated with

validity. Based on these two characteristics, validity is viewed either through an

argument-based lens or an instrument-based lens. According to the argument-based

approach, validity lies within the interpretation of the test scores (Streiner, 2010). In

contrast to the argument-based approach, the instrument-based approach locates validity

as a property of the test itself (Harthcoat, 2013). Therefore, there is no universally

accepted definition for validity.

According to Measured Progress (2014), validity of an instrument is an evaluation

of interpreting test scores and not the test itself. Furthermore, there are specific aspects

associated with validity. Measured Progress (2014) identified five aspects that provided

information relating to validity. These aspects include test content, response processes,
 87

internal structures, relation to other variables, and consequences of testing. Each of these

aspects contributes to the body of evidence regarding the comprehensive validity of score

interpretations (Measured Progress, 2014).

Test content validity assesses how well a task aligns with the curriculum and

standards for each content area and grade level (Measured Progress, 2014). Content

validity was “informed by the item development process, including how the test

blueprints and test items align to the curriculum and standards” (Measured Progress,

2014, p. 70). Bunce et al. (2010) stated that a panel of experts often determines content

validity. This panel is tasked with determine if the content being assessed matches a test

item.

Aligning each NECAP test item to a specific GSE ensures validity (Measured

Progress, 2014). Internally, committees review the alignment of each test item with the

states GSEs. These committees are comprised of content experts and bias experts

(Measured Progress, 2014). External review is a function of each state’s Item Review

Committee (IRC).

Measured Progress (2014) stated that within classical test theory, the

discrimination index refers to the item-test correlation. The discrimination indices are a

measure of how well an item assesses the same knowledge and skill assessed by other

items contributing to the criterion score. For constructed-response questions, Measured

Progress utilized the Pearson product-moment correlation. For multiple-choice items,

Measured Progress utilized the point-biserial correlation. Measured Progress noted that

the theoretical range for these statistics is -1.0 to 1.0 and a typical observed range is from

0.2 to 0.7. The discrimination indices for reading and mathematics all fell within the
 88

typical observed range. However, no discrimination index existed for the writing test.

This is because the writing test uses a single writing prompt. The writing assessment

utilizes double blind scoring to ensure validity.

Reliability

Brennan (2011) stated, “reliability involves quantifying the consistencies and

inconsistencies in observed scores” (p. 1). According to Schweizer (2011), four indicators

of internal consistency, or reliability exist. These include Cronbach’s α, parallel-test, test-

retest, and split-half methods. The 2013-14 testing year utilized the Cronbach Alpha.

Cronbach’s α varies in size from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating perfect consistency. Nunnally,

in Schweizer (2011) noted a 0.70 as an acceptable degree of consistency. Furthermore, he

noted that a good degree is 0.80. George and Mallory, cited in Gliem and Gliem (2003),

provided the following rule of thumb: “α > .9 – Excellent, α > .8 – Good, α > .7 –

Acceptable, α > .6 – Questionable, α > .5 – Poor, and α < .5 – Unacceptable” (p. 87).

For the 2013-2014 tests, the Cronbach α for reading was 0.89 and for

mathematics it was 0.93 (Measured Progress, 2014). A reliability rating for the writing

test was not calculated. This is because of the writing test utilizing a single writing

prompt. All writing tests are double blind scored.

Standard measurement error (SME) is another component of reliability. High

SMEs indicate scores that are unstable while low SMEs indicate scores are reliable.

According to Measured Progress, the 2013-2014 math and reading test SMEs were 3.72

and 3.01, respectively (2014).

Another way to measure consistency is to use Cohen’s kappa. Zaiontz (2014)

noted that although no clear-cut agreement on what constitutes good or poor kappa levels
 89

exist, the following guideline may be used to determine inter-rater reliability: 0 – 20%

poor, 20 – 40% fair, 40 – 60% moderate, 60 – 80% good, and 80% or higher very good.

Based on the above-mentioned criteria, the mathematics assessment for the 2013/14

testing year was in the good range and the reading assessments for the same testing year

was in the moderate range.

Reliability (Cronbach’s α and SEMs) was not calculated for the grade 11 writing

assessment. This is because of the use of a single writing prompt. Measured Progress

(2014) uses double blind scoring to achieve inter-rater consistency. Measured Progress

listed the correlation values for the double blind scoring as 0.77.

Data Collection and Management

The researcher could choose the sample from four states because each of these

four states uses the NECAP assessments to demonstrate compliance with NCLB. The

researcher excluded the state of Maine as it has implemented a statewide one-to-one

program. From the three remaining states, the researcher searched for pairs of school

districts, with similar demographics, that met the established criteria: one school that had

implemented one-to-one technology (School A) and one traditional school (School B).

This research utilized data from the fall of 2013. During the 2013/2014 teaching

year, School A tested 273 students in reading and writing and 272 students in

mathematics. School B tested 156 students in reading, mathematics, and writing. The

researcher conducted a statistical analysis using all of the data available.

A power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2007). The results

indicated that the minimum sample size for group 1 (School A) was 68 and the minimum
 90

sample size for group 2 (School B) was 40. The researcher analyzed the data from all of

the students (see Appendix G).

The researcher contacted the appropriate department of education in order to

obtain permission to analyze the data from the two schools. The researcher received

permission to conduct the research via e-mail. The researcher forwarded this e-mail to

IRB. The state department of education, as well as the individual schools, receives an

Excel file with the disaggregated data. This file contains the student names, identifying

numbers, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, special education (IEPs and 504s),

Title 1 services, raw score, scaled score, and final score (0 – 4). The researcher requested

an Excel file that contained only the raw scores, scaled scores, and final scores for each

of the three assessments.

The data collected from the two New England school districts will be stored in a

locked safe maintained by the researcher. This data contains no names of individuals

completing the assessment. Furthermore, the names cannot be determined from the data.

The researcher will maintain the data for 7 years after the publishing of the study. The

researcher will destroy all data after 7 years. This will include the deleting of electronic

data and the shredding of all hard copies. Since this research will not involve the active

participation of students, and the data being used is post factum, the researcher received

an exempt approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) under 45 CFR 46.101(b).

Data Analysis Procedures

The data analysis for this study included both descriptive and inferential statistics.

Descriptive statistics will summarize the sample data. A t test will determine the

inferential statistics. The researcher used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
 91

(SPSS) software to calculate the t statistic. Based on the power analysis, the minimum

sample size for group 1 (School A) was determined to be 68 and the minimum sample

size for group 2 (School B) was determined to be 40 (see Appendix G). For this study,

the researcher analyzed the achievement scores from approximately 429 students.

According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008), there are three assumptions to be

addressed when using the independent-measures t test for hypothesis testing exist. The

first assumption is that the sample data must be from a normally distributed population.

This assumption becomes less significant as the sample size increases (Gravetter &

Wallnau, 2008). The second assumption is applicable to studies that involve two different

samples and states that the two populations must have equal variances. This second

assumption is the homogeneity of variance (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008, p. 275). The

final assumption is that each score must be independent of all other scores.

The t statistic for the three research questions (p < 0.05) will determine whether to

accept or reject the null hypotheses. Although research questions 1, 2, and 3 ask the same

basic question, each question focuses on a different content area. Research question 1

focused on the difference in student achievement scores (Dependent variable) on the

NECAP mathematics test of 11th grade students who engaged in a one-to-one technology

(Independent variable) approach versus students who attended a traditional school

(Independent variable). Research questions 2 and 3 are similar except that question 2

focused on the results of the reading assessment and question 3 focused on the results of

the writing assessment. For each of these three research questions, the null hypothesis

states there is no difference between the achievement scores of students who participated

in a one-to-one technology approach on the New England Common Assessment Program

 92

(NECAP) mathematics (R1), reading (R2), or writing (R3) test than those who attended a

traditional school.

This research followed an independent-measures design. Whenever the data are

from two separate samples, an independent-measures research, or a between-subjects

research is required (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). Students taught with one-to-one

technology are contained in one of the samples. The other sample contains students

taught without the use of one-to-one technology.

Ethical Considerations

In order to conduct this research, the researcher submitted the proposal to the

university in order to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Since this study

utilizes archival state data, informed consent forms were not necessary. Furthermore, the

data cannot be associated with individual students. To protect each school’s identities, the

researcher used pseudonyms (letters). Since the data used in this research cannot be

linked to individual students, the researcher received an exempt review (45 CFR

46.101(b)).

All data, including hard copy and electronic, will be stored in a locked safe

maintained by the researcher. The researcher will maintain the data for 7 years. After

which the researcher will shred all hard copies and delete the electronic data.

Limitations and Delimitations

The researcher attempted to examine one-to-one technology integration over a

broad socioeconomic status. The researcher chose the reading, mathematics, and

writing NECAP assessments as the instrument for this study. The researcher chose this

instrument because it covers the New England region and the researcher has a working
 93

knowledge the instrument. However, of the four states that participate in the NECAP

assessment, the researcher eliminated the state of Maine. The researcher eliminated the

state of Maine because of its implementation of a statewide one-to-one program. Of

the three remaining states, the researcher searched for a pair of school districts with

similar demographics. This search provided the researcher with one pair of schools.

The researcher was not able to identify a district from both a lower socioeconomic

status and utilizing one-to-one technology. Because these two school districts are all

from the New England area, diversity became a limitation. Based on the disaggregated

results provided to Measured Progress (2014) from each of the two districts, over 90%

of the sample is classified as White, 4% Black, 3% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 1%

American Indian. The researcher was looking for a more diverse sample, but was

limited because of the constraints of the study.

Delimitations

This study had two delimitations. The first was that the study was delimitated to two

schools in the New England area. The researcher chose these two schools because of their

differences regarding technology integration. School A utilizes a one-to-one technology

approach and School B utilizes a more traditional approach. From a demographics

perspective, these two schools are very similar.

The second delimitation involves the instrument used for this study. The states of

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island each require their respective

eleventh grade students to complete the NECAP assessment. The NECAP assessment

is a series of paper and pencil tests. The students complete these assessments in the
 94

fall season of their junior year. Each assessment targets a specific content area. The

three content areas include reading, mathematics and writing.

Summary

The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative research study was to

examine whether a difference exists between the achievement scores of students who

attended a one-to-one school and those who attended a traditional school. The instrument

chosen for this study, the NECAP assessment tests for reading, mathematics, and writing,

has been proven to be both reliable and valid (Measured Progress, 2014). The research

questions focused on the differences in achievement scores based on a specific

technological innovation.

Because the researcher could not manipulate the independent variable, the

researcher chose a causal-comparative study. For this study, two independent variables

existed. The first included the students who attend a high school that has implemented a

one-to-one technology program. The second independent variable included students who

attended a traditional high school. The dependent variable for this study was the post

factum scores from the NECAP reading, mathematics, and writing tests. The researcher

will compare the means of the dependent variables using an independent measures t test.

The next step was to obtain IRB approval and complete the research. The

subsequent chapter will focus on data collection, analysis, and present the results. The

final chapter summarizes the study and provides evidence of the studies contribution to

the extant body of literature.

 95

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of this quantitative causal-

comparative study. The goal of the study was to compare the achievement scores between

two different teaching methods. The data for this study were the individual student

achievement scores on the 2013-14 NECAP reading, mathematics, and writing tests.

School A utilized a one-to-one technology approach while School B was a traditional

school.

Three research questions guided this study. Each of the three research questions

focused on a specific content area. Research question 1 focused on mathematics scores.

Question 2 references the reading section and question 3 focused on the writing results.

The null hypotheses for each research question were the same, the difference

being the content area. The null hypotheses stated there would be no statistically

significant difference between the two teaching methods. The alternate hypotheses stated

that a statistically significant difference existed in achievement scores between students

who learned utilizing a one-to-one approach and students who were taught the traditional

way.

The researcher presents the statistical findings for this study in this chapter. In this

study, the researcher used both descriptive and inferential and statistics. The chapter will

conclude with a presentation of the findings for this study.

Descriptive Data

The sample for this study was from two schools located in the New England

region of the United States. The reading and writing section of the NECAP assessment
 96

each had 429 students. The mathematics portion of the NECAP test had a total of 428

participants.

There were a total of 273 participants from School A. Approximately 95 % (n =

259) of these participants were White. There were 136 females and 137 males. Special

education (IEPs) accounted for 10% (n = 26). Those classified as Free and Reduced

Lunch accounted for 22% (n = 61). School B had a total of 156 participants.

Approximately 81% were classified as White (n = 127). Sixty-five females and 91 males

participated in the study. Approximately 15% (n = 24) were listed as receiving special

education services (IEP). Those listed as Free and Reduced Lunch accounted for 21% (n

= 32).

The statistical significance for the independent measures t test was set at 0.05. For

the mathematics assessment, the Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance failed to

reject the null hypothesis (F = 0.28, p = 0.60). The Levene’s test also failed to reject the

null hypothesis for the reading assessment (F = 0.85, p = 0.36). However, the Levene’s

test for writing did reject the null hypothesis (F = 12.77, p < 0.001).

Mathematics Assessment

The mathematics achievement scores for School A ranged from 1114 to 1165.

The mean score for School A was 1139.60 with a standard deviation of 7.19. The

skewness for School A was -0.08 and the kurtosis was 0.40. Figure 3 shows a histogram

representing the mathematics achievement scores for School A.

Table 1 shows the five-number summaries associated with School A for

mathematics. With an IQR of 11, outliers are identified as those scores less than or equal

to 1117.5 or greater than or equal to 1161.5. The data analysis indicates there is one score
 97

less than or equal to 1114 and one score greater than or equal to 1165. The net effect of

these outliers resulted in a shift of the mean (M = 1139.60) to the right of the median

(Mdn = 1139).

Table 1 also shows the five-number mathematics assessment scores associated

with School B. The IQR for School B was 10. This IQR indicates outliers for scores less

than or equal to 1121 and greater than or equal to 1161. Based on the analysis conducted

using SPSS software, there were three scores less than or equal to 1119. These three

outliers caused the mean (M = 1140.59) to shift to the left of the median (Mdn = 1141).

Figure 3. Histogram representing the achievement scores for School A.

The mathematics achievement scores for School B ranged from 1114 to 1155.

The mean was 1140.59 with a standard deviation of 7.61. The skewness value was -0.63
 98

and the kurtosis was 0.71. Figure 4 shows a histogram representing the mathematical

achievement scores for School B.

Figure 4. Histogram representing math scores for School B.

Table 1

Five-Number Summary for Mathematics

MATHEMATICS Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum

School A 1114 1134 1139 1145 1165
School B 1114 1136 1141 1146 1155
 99

Reading Assessment

The achievement scores from School A covered a range from 1100 to 1180. The

scores from School B ranged from 1117 to 1177. The mean for School A was 1152.72

with a standard deviation of 10.56. For School B, the mean was 1152.86 with a standard

deviation of 11.55. School A had a skewness of -0.27 and a kurtosis of 1.81. The

skewness for School B was -0.44 and the kurtosis was 0.75. Figure 5 shows a histogram

representing School A and Figure 6 is the histogram for School B.

Table 2 presents the reading five-number summary for School A. According to

the five-number summary for School A, School A has an IQR of 13. With an IQR of 13,

the scores for School A are outliers if they are less than or equal to 1127.5 or greater than

or equal to 1179.5. The data analysis identified three outliers that were less than or equal

to 1127 and one outlier that was greater than or equal to 1180. The effect of the higher

outlier resulted in a shift of the mean (M = 1152.72) to the right of the median (Mdn =

1152).

Table 2 also presents the reading five-number summary for School B. The IQR

for School B was 14.5. This establishes outliers for scores less than or equal to 1123.25

or greater than or equal to 1181.25. The results for School B indicate there are three

outliers less than or equal to 1119. The effect of these three outliers resulted in a shift of

the mean (M = 1152.86) to the left of the median (Mdn = 1153).

 100

Figure 5. Histogram representing School A.

Figure 6. Histogram representing School B.

 101

Table 2

Five-Number Summary for Reading

READING Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum

School A 1100 1147 1152 1160 1180
School B 1117 1145 1153 1159.5 1177

Writing Assessment

The achievement scores for School A on the writing assessment ranged from 1 to

4. The mean score was 2.68 with a standard deviation of 0.34. The skewness was -0.12

and the kurtosis was -0.23. See Figure 7 for a histogram representing School A.

Figure 7. Histogram representing the writing scores from School A.

 102

The achievement scores for School B ranged from 2 to 4. The mean score was

2.79 and the standard deviation was 0.52. The skewness was -0.24 and the kurtosis was

0.041. Figure 8 shows a histogram representing School B.

Table 3 presents the five-number summaries associated with the writing

assessment for School A and School B. The IQR for both schools was 1. This value

established outliers for any scores less than or equal to 0.5 or greater than or equal to 4.5.

Neither School A nor School B had any outliers on the writing assessment.

Figure 8. Histogram representing the achievement scores for School B.

 103

Table 3

Five-Number Summary for Writing

WRITING Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum

School A 1 2 3 3 4
School B 2 2 3 3 4

Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher received the data in an Excel file. The researcher entered the data

(copy and paste) into SPSS. Using SPSS software, the researcher conducted two

statistical analyses. The first analysis involved descriptive statistics. The second analysis

was a t test for independent groups. With a confidence level of 95% (0.95), the t statistic

was calculated for each of the three research questions. The t statistic for a one-tailed

distribution (p = 0.05) is 1.65

Prior to conducting the study, the researcher conducted a power analysis using

G*Power 3 (Faul et al., 2007). Based on the research conducted by the researcher, an

effect size of 0.5 seemed appropriate. After the research was completed the researcher

revisited effect size. Using an effect size calculator, the researcher determined the effect

size for the reading assessment was 0.01 (Becker, 1999). The writing assessment had an

effect size of 0.20 and the mathematics assessment had an effect size of 0.13. All three of

the effect sizes fell in the category of small (Becker, 1999).

The researcher followed the data analysis section of Chapter 3. The only variation

to this involved the number of participants. Initially, the researcher was expecting more

participants. When the researcher received the Excel file, there were several participants

listed as 12th graders. Since the purpose of this study was to compare the achievement

scores between 11th graders, the researcher removed all of the 12th graders from the file.
 104

Three assumptions must be addressed when using an independent-measures t test

for hypothesis testing (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). The first is that the samples must be

from normally distributed populations. According to Huck (2012), values of skewness

and kurtosis between -1 and 1 are considered normally distributed. With the exception of

the reading assessment for School B (kurtosis was 1.81), all data were from normally

distributed populations. Additionally, Gravetter and Wallnau (2008) note that this

assumption becomes less significant as the sample size increases. According to the power

analysis, a minimum sample size of 108 participants was required. This study utilized the

data from 429 participants in reading, 429 participants in writing, and 428 participants in

mathematics.

The second assumption states that the two populations must have equal variances.

According to the statistical analysis conducted using SPSS software, the mathematics

assessment (F = 0.28, p = 0.60) and the reading assessment (F = 0.85, p = 0.36) both

failed to reject the null hypothesis for homogeneity of variance. However, the writing

assessment (F = 12.77, p < 0.001) rejected the null hypothesis for homogeneity of

variance.

The final assumption states that each score must be independent of all other

scores (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). According to Measured Progress (2014), eight or

nine forms of a test exist, depending on the content area and grade level. Each test

booklet is also sealed and numbered. Therefore, the score received on one test is

independent of the score another student receives on their test. Furthermore, this would

be the same case for all three of the assessments. That same argument is valid regarding

the scores obtained on the three tests by the same student. That is, the score received on
 105

the mathematics test cannot influence the score received on either the reading or writing

assessments.

The reliability of the 2013-14 NECAP tests was assessed using Cronbach’s α

(alpha) and Standard Errors of Measurement (SEMs). The assessment raw scores are

used to calculate the Standard Error of Measures. According to Measured Progress

(2014), Cronbach’s α for the mathematics and reading assessments were 0.93 and 0.89,

respectively. Measured Progress listed the SEMs for mathematics and reading as 3.72 and

3.01, respectively. Cronbach’s α could not be calculated for the writing assessment as

that assessment involved a single writing prompt. To determine reliability, each writing

assessment was double-blind scored and a correlation was calculated. For the 2013-14

writing assessment, the correlation for writing was 0.77 (Measured Progress, 2014).

For the NECAP assessments, Measured Progress defined validity as

“interpretations of the test scores” (2014, p. 70). Based on this definition, test content,

response processes, internal structures, relationship to other variables, and consequences

of testing become the aspects of validity that provide evidence of validity (Measured

Progress, 2014). Here is a brief description of each aspect of validity (for a more detailed

examination of these aspects, see Chapter 3).

• Test content determines how well the tasks represent the curriculum and

standards.

• Response processes involve the training and monitoring of hand-scorers. It also

involves the quality control procedures related to scanning and machine scoring.

• Internal structures involve item analysis, scaling and equating, and reliability.
 106

• By examining the extent to which scores converge with measures of similar

constructs and diverge with measures of different constructs, relation to other

variables are addressed.

• Measured Progress (2014) addresses the consequences of testing in the scoring

and reporting system.

The main overarching question guiding this study was whether the

implementation of one-to-one technology improved the students understanding in

mathematics, reading, and writing. An improvement in understanding is indicated by

higher achievement scores for School A compared to School B. Overall, three research

questions were used to guide this study. In the next section, the researcher presents the

results for each research question.

Results

Several studies regarding technology use in the classroom and its effect on student

achievement exist. These studies typically focused on a particular piece of technology or

a specific content area. This study focused on teaching methods, with regard to

technology, and achievement scores in the content areas of mathematics, reading, and

writing. This study utilized Excel and SPSS for data collection and analysis. For this

study, the researcher was interested in determining whether the one-to-one students’

scores exceeded the traditional students’ scores by a statistically significant amount.

Therefore, a one-tailed t test was calculated.

The teaching methods included a one-to-one technology approach and a

traditional high school approach. Three research questions guided this study. Each
 107

research question focused on a specific content area. This section presents the findings

based on each of the three research questions.

Research Question 1. The first question was: Is there a difference in the student

achievement scores on the NECAP mathematics test between students who were engaged

in a one-to-one technology school versus students who attended a traditional school?

The results of the mathematics assessment for School A were as follows: M = 1139.56,

SD = 7.19, and SEM = 0.44. For School B, the results were: M = 1140.59, SD = 7.61, and

SEM = 0.61. Table 4 displays the results of the assessment mean, standard deviation, and

standard error mean. The results of the t test were: t = -1.35, df = 426, and p = 0.09. Table

5 displays the results for the t test.

Table 4

Assessment Mean, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error Mean

School A School B

Content Area M (SD) SEM M (SD) SEM

Mathematics 1139.60 (7.19) 0.436 1140.59 (7.61) 0.609

Reading 1152.72 (10.56) 0.639 1152.86 (11.55) 0.924

Writing 2.68 (0.59) 0.036 2.80 (0.52) 0.041

 108

Table 5

t test for Equality of Means

Assessment t df p

Mathematics -1.347 426 .090

Reading -0.129 427 .449

Writing -2.149 356.910 .016

Research Question 2. The second question was: Is there a difference in the

student achievement scores on the NECAP reading test between students who were

engaged in a one-to-one technology school versus students who attended a traditional

school? The results of the reading assessment showed that School A had an M = 1152.72,

SD = 10.56, and SEM = 0.64. For School B, M = 1152.86, SD = 11.55, and SEM = 0.93.

The t test was conducted and the results are t = -0.13, df = 427, and p = 0.45.

Table 4 displays the reading assessment mean, standard deviation, and standard error

mean. Table 5 shows the t test for equality of means.

Research Question 3. The third question was: Is there a difference in the student

achievement scores on the NECAP writing test between students who were engaged in a

one-to-one technology school versus students who attended a traditional school? The

results of the writing assessment showed that School A had an M = 2.678, SD = 0.59, and

SEM = 0.036. For School B, M = 2.80, SD = 0.52, and SEM = 0.04. Table 4 displays the

writing assessment mean, standard deviation, and standard error mean. The results of the

writing t test are t = -2.15, df = 356.91, and p = 0.02. Table 5 displays the results for the

writing t test.
 109

Using the equations Q1 – (1.5 IQR) and Q3 + (1.5 IQR), the researcher

identified outliers in both the reading and mathematics assessments. The SPSS software

identified the same outliers. To check the influence of these outliers, the researcher

removed them and analyzed the data using SPSS. Based on the results of this analysis,

the researcher determined that the outliers had no effect on the data analysis. In Tables 6

and 7, the researcher presents the effects of outliers on the mathematics assessment.

Tables 6 shows the effect of outliers on School A. Table 7 shows the effect of outliers on

School B. In Tables 8 and 9, the researcher presents the effects of outliers on the reading

assessment. Table 8 shows the effects on School A while table 9 shows the effects on

School B.

Table 6

Effect of Outliers

Mathematics
School A All Data Without Outliers
M(SD) 1139.596(7.194) 1139.673(6.774)
Skewness -0.081 -0.022
Kurtosis 0.398 -0.478

Table 7

Effect of Outliers on School B

Mathematics M(SD)
School B All Data Without Outliers
M(SD) 1140.590(7.609) 1141.046(6.931)
Skewness -0.727 -0.267
Kurtosis 0.706 -0.206
 110

Table 8

Effect of Outliers on School A

Reading
School A All Data Without Outliers
M(SD) 1152.718 (10.557) 1153.011 (9.723)
Skewness -0.268 0.234
Kurtosis 1.807 -0.213

Table 9

Effect of Outliers on School B

Reading M(SD)
School B All Data Without Outliers
M(SD) 1152.859 (11.547) 1153.549 (10.536)
Skewness -0.441 -0.044
Kurtosis 0.746 -0.041

To further examine normality, the researcher utilized SPSS to conduct both a

Kolmogorov-Smirnov (SK) test and a Shapiro-Wilk (SW) test. The researcher conducted

these tests on each of the six data sets. Three data sets were from School A and three

were from school B. Each data set was comprised of the mathematics, reading, and

writing assessment scores.

The KS test for mathematics rejected the null hypothesis (p = 0.04) for School A

and failed to reject the null hypothesis (p = 0.07) for School B. The KS test for reading

rejected the null hypotheses for School A (p = 0.004) and School B (p = 0.02). Finally,

the KS test for writing rejected the null hypotheses for School A (p < 0.001) and School

B (p < 0.001).
 111

The SW test for mathematics failed to reject the null hypothesis for School A (p =

0.15) and failed to reject the null hypothesis for School B (p = 0.002). The SW test

rejected the null hypotheses for both schools in reading and writing. Figures 9 – 14 show

the Normal Q-Q Plots for these tests.

Figure 9. School A Normal Q-Q Plots for mathematics.

Figure 10. School B Normal Q-Q Plots for mathematics.

 112

Figure 11. School A Normal Q-Q Plots for reading.

Figure 12. School B Normal Q-Q Plots for reading.

 113

Figure 13. School A Normal Q-Q Plots for writing.

Figure 14. School B Normal Q-Q Plots for writing.

Summary

In this study, three research questions were examined. Each research question

targeted a specific content area (mathematics, reading, and writing). To compare means
 114

for each of the research questions, the t statistic was calculated. The researcher provided

descriptive statistics for each of the research questions. The main focus of this research

was to see if a statistically significant difference existed between the standardized

assessment scores of students who participated in a one-to-one technology approach and

those students who attended a traditional high school.

A total of 428 assessment scores were examined for the mathematics assessment.

The reading and writing assessments each had 429 participants. Tables 1 – 3 present the

five-number summary associated with each research question and school. Table 4 shows

the mean, standard deviation, and standard error mean for each of the research questions

and schools. Table 5 shows the t test for equality of mean associated with the research

questions.

The researcher identified outliers in both the reading and mathematics assessment.

To determine if these outliers created a limitation, the researcher removed the outliers and

conducted another statistical analysis using SPSS. Tables 6 – 9 present the results of this

second analysis. As a result of this second analysis, the researcher concluded that the

outliers were not statistically significant.

With the outcomes summarized, the next step is to present the findings. In

Chapter 5, the researcher will examine the summary of the study as well as a summary of

the findings. In Chapter 5, the researcher includes the implications and considerations for

future study recommendations.

 115

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

The problem that guided this study was a lack of empirical data showing whether

a one-to-one technology integration program increased student achievement scores over

their traditional school peers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine

whether a statistically significant difference existed between two teaching approaches.

The two schools chosen for this study are located in the northeast region of the United

States. These two schools were selected based on their different teaching approaches with

regarding technology.

With the current spotlight in academics shining on student achievement and

accountability, there has been research conducted involving the use of technology and its

effect on student achievement. The majority of these studies utilized a myopic focus.

That is, they focused on mainly one content area. That content area was mathematics.

This study took a more holistic view by crafting three research questions that focused on

mathematics, reading, and writing. Each research question focused on a specific content

area.

With student achievement and accountability being focal points of education

reform, administrators are looking for innovative ways to improve their students’

achievement scores. One of the ways in which administrators are searching for an

advantage is through the use of technology. This study focused on the implementation of

a one-to-one technology initiative. In a traditional school, some students may have a

laptop while a one-to-one school provides each student with a laptop.

 116

Earlier studies have focused on one content are. Instead of analyzing the scores

from one content area, this study will examine assessments from three different content

areas. The researcher postulates that examining three different content areas with the

same group of students produces a better indicator of school reform.

The remainder of this chapter will focus on the summary of the study, as well as a

summary of the findings and conclusions. This chapter will also address the implications

associated with the study. Finally, this chapter includes recommendations for future

research.

Summary of the Study

With the high stakes associated with accountability and transparency,

administrators are being innovative as they examine ways in which they can gain a

competitive advantage. As a result of these standardized tests, some underperforming

schools may be closed (NCLB, 2001). This could mean the end of a career for a school

administrator associated with an underperforming school.

This study examined trends in school reform as well as trends with regard to

technology. According to NCLB (2001), schools are assessed by the performance of each

student. Therefore, school administrators and teachers are searching for innovative

methods that will allow them to reach every student. One technology initiative that has

been gaining ground in the research is the implementation of one-to-one technology.

By definition, one-to-one schools provide each student with a laptop computer

(Larkin, 2012). Schools are eliminating the original divide when they provide students

with their own laptop. The original digital divide was the separation between those who
 117

had the technology and those who did not (Gore, 1998; Kassam et al., 2013; Yelland &

Neal, 2013). The elimination of the original divide is creating a new divide.

The new digital divide focused on how the technology is used. The new divide

has implications for administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Administrators need

to budget for the devices and create a professional development plan for the devices.

Teachers need to understand the difference between teaching technology and using

technology to teach (Kuhn & Dempsey, 2011). Finally, to facilitate learning, parents and

students need to understand how to use the technology.

Administrators must have a plan for acquiring technology and training the staff on

how to best implement the technology in the classroom. According to Chikasanda et al.

(2013), a successful professional development plan addresses the teachers’ views

regarding the chasm between the nature of technology and its role in education.

Professional development plans are a dynamic process. If professional development

becomes stagnant, teachers may resort back to their traditional strategies.

Implementing technology into the classroom is similar to becoming a professional

learning community (PLC) (DuFour et al., 2008). Schools do not become professional

learning communities because they are doing things associated with PLCs. Schools

become PLCs when they adopt the philosophical underpinnings associated with the

pillars of a PLC. The same is true regarding technology integration. Using technology to

perform routine calculations is not the same as embedding technology in the classroom.

The technology should be used in such a manner that students are discovering,

collaborating, and questioning with the aid of the technology.

 118

The purpose of this study was not to examine professional development plans or

determine the level of technology implementation. This study focused on the difference

in achievement scores between students who attended a one-to-one school and those who

attended a traditional school. Unlike other studies that focused on one content area, this

study took a more holistic approach. That is to say that this study not only examined the

differences between the two cohorts mentioned above, it did so for the three content areas

of mathematics, reading, and writing.

The remainder of this chapter will focus on the summary of the findings and

conclusions. This chapter will also look at the theoretical, practical, and future

implications. Finally, this chapter will conclude with recommendations for future studies

and practices.

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

School reform movements have been around almost as long as the schools

themselves. Over time, the focus of these various reform movements have shifted from

educating only the brightest students to educating all students. However, the impetus for

each reform movement has typically been a critical point in history. This means that

educational reform has been reactive rather than proactive.

NCLB (2001) is still focusing attention on accountability and transparency.

Administrators are searching for innovations that will promote learning. One current

trend involves the implementation of technology. This study focused on two teaching

approaches and the effect they had on student achievement. Since this study involved two

schools in the northeast region of the United States, the NECAP tests were the chosen

instrument. Unlike many of the other studies that examined technology and student
 119

achievement, this study examined academic gains on a more holistic level. Rather than

focus on a single content area, this study examined the results from three assessments.

The researcher was interested in determining whether there were achievement increases

in mathematics, reading, and writing.

According to Rushby (2013), computer-assisted instruction appeared in the early

1970s. By the late 1970s, personal computers arrived and were going to change

education. This has been a common thread throughout education: As a new piece of

technology becomes available, it promises to change academia. However, the research

presents a much different picture.

In one study, the findings showed that 1:1 laptop computing had a positive impact

on student academic engagement and student learning (Keengwe et al., 2012). Keengwe

et al. (2012) used a Likert scale in their study. In this same study, 90.7 % of the

participants indicated that they used their laptops on a weekly or monthly basis.

The results of the study conducted by Claro et al. (2013) are slightly different than

Keengwe et al (2012). They found that one-to-one computers used in mathematics and

language are primarily for drilling and practice. They did note that students were more

motivated. Claro et al. (2013) noted an absence of innovative teaching strategies through

their classroom observations.

This study did not examine whether students were more motivated or whether

teachers implemented innovative strategies aligned to the technology. This study focused

purely on academic results. That is to say that this study analyzed data to determine if a

statistically significant difference existed between students who participated in a one-to-

one program and those who participated in a traditional school.

 120

One common thread within the research is the importance of the classroom

teacher with respect to technology integration. Shirley et al. (2010) stated that a weak

alignment between technology and the teacher’s perceptions of that technology interfered

with the teacher’s ability to integrate technology into their classroom. This finding may

indicate the existence of a generational component to the digital divide.

Another common thread within the research was the student’s familiarity with,

and exposure to, technology (Delen & Bulut, 2011). Furthermore, their study indicated

that their access to, and comfort level with, technology were strong predictors of math

and science achievement. This finding indicates that the digital divide is serving a

multifaceted role in education.

Very few studies have shown a statistically significant difference between

technology integration and student performance. This study appears to be in alignment

with those findings. All three of research questions failed to reject their associated null

hypothesis. The data indicated that, based on the means, School B outperformed School

A on every assessment (mathematics, reading, and writing).

Even though this study, similar to several previous studies, failed to show a

statistically significant difference between these two teaching approaches, the findings

illuminated possible underlying variables. In an effort to identify a statistically significant

difference, researchers should continue to conduct these studies. Answering the question

of why would then be the focal point of future studies. Additional studies could examine

how students used the technology to become engaged in the learning process. Finally,

researchers could examine how professional development and teacher beliefs impact the

learning process.
 121

Implications

This study could highlight the need for administrators to examine their

professional development programs regarding technology integration. Furthermore, the

findings could provide teachers with methods that will increase their ability to embed

technology into their course work. Finally, the results could provide institutions of higher

learning with ideas for preparing new teachers with techniques for integrating technology

that aligns with the current research on learning and brain development.

One of the strengths of this study involved the number of participants. This study

examined the scores of 429 students in reading and writing and 428 students in

mathematics. The power analysis conducted required a minimum sample size of 108

participants. Another strength of this study involved the holistic approach taken by the

researcher. Rather than examining a single content area, the researcher examined the data

for mathematics, reading, and writing.

One weakness associated with this study is that it only examined scores on a

standardized test. Although the researcher analyzed the data from three content areas, the

researcher did not examine how the teachers at the one-to-one school integrated

technology into the curriculum. Furthermore, the researcher did not examine the

technology implementation at the traditional school.

To ensure alignment, the researcher chose the proper methodology and research

design. Furthermore, the researcher ensured the alignment between the methodology,

research design, and data analysis. The researcher believes the results of this study are not

only credible; they are also in line with the results of previous studies and they may

illuminate underlying variables that could have influenced the data.

 122

The framework that guided this research was the digital divide. The results of this

study may indicate that the digital divide still exists. However, this digital divide is more

complex than originally thought. As the original divide proposed by Gore (1998),

Kassam et al. (2013) and Yelland and Neal (2013) appears to be disappearing, a new

divide is surfacing. This new divide has two components. The first component deals with

connections to the Internet. The second one involves how teachers and students are

utilizing the technology. Based on the results of this study, this latter component appears

to be more prevalent. The remainder of this section will look at theoretical, practical, and

future implications.

Theoretical implications. Although this study found no statistically significant

difference between teaching methods, it may illuminate the presence of the new digital

divide. This new digital divide may have further implications than the original divide

This study, as well as previous studies, identified the complexity of this new divide.

Though not a major focus of this study, this study may have identified the depth and

breadth of the new digital divide.

Practical implications. This study may have uncovered the depth of the new

divide. This new divide is impacted by professional development, pedagogy, and learning

styles. Administrators should revisit their professional development plans to ensure that

the newer digital divide is being addressed. Classroom teachers should examine

pedagogy in an effort to better implement technology as a means of meeting an

educational goal. Additionally, teachers should look at ways to use technology to meet

the needs of diverse learners. Finally, the results of this study may indicate a need for

institutions of higher learning to rethink their technology coursework. Post-secondary

 123

teaching institutions should examine the current trends in technology and provide new

teachers with opportunities to implement the technology in ways that will enrich the

teaching and learning experiences.

Future implications. Based on the results of this study, one may conclude that

the gap associated with the new digital divide is not closing. Not only did the one-to-one

students not outperform the traditional students by a statistically significant difference,

their mean scores on all three tests were below the mean scores of the traditional students.

Furthermore, had the researcher chosen a two-tailed t test, School B would have

outscored School A by a statistically significant difference on the writing test

t(356.91 = -2.15, p = 0.03). Since the NECAP is a paper and pencil test, this may indicate

that students attending School A relied too heavily on the software. Of course, the only

way to answer why this occurred would be to examine the results of each writing

assessment.

Since this study did not find a statistically significant difference between the two

learning approaches, it begs the question, why? Furthermore, this study illuminates

possible gaps in classroom technology integration. Additional research should examine

classroom technology use. If students have the technology, and school districts embed the

technology into the curriculum, why are these students not outperforming their traditional

school counterparts? This study appears to indicate the existence of a disconnect between

having technology and utilizing it to facilitate learning.

Recommendations

Although each study is contingent on time and place, the results of previous

studies should guide future research. Based on the results of this study, two paths for
 124

future research exist. The first would be to continue looking for statistically significant

differences regarding achievement scores. Once a study has identified a statistically

significant difference, researchers could examine what led to that difference. More

specifically, what did the administrators and teachers do differently that fostered the

increase in learning?

The second path could step back and examine how professional development,

pedagogy, and student engagement are aligning with technology integration. One of the

earlier studies, One Laptop Per Child, hypothesized that simply providing students with

the technology would peak the students interest. However, research has shown that

hypothesis to be incorrect. Embedding technology into the classroom is a more complex

issue than simply providing students with laptops. Mishra and Koehler (2006) identified

the interconnectedness of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) and its

influence on embedding technology in the classroom.

Recommendations for future research. With a focus on academic achievement

and accountability, future studies should be conducted that examine the relationship

between technology integration and student achievement. When a study indicates a

statistically significant difference exists with regard to technology and achievement, other

studies should begin looking for explanations of why. Furthermore, based on the results

of this study, future research should address the gap identified by the new digital divide.

Additionally, future research should examine how technology is integrated and how

students are utilizing the technology to inform their learning. Future studies should also

include how teachers incorporate technology into their classroom. Finally, studies should

examine the type of technology used by teachers and students.

 125

As long as standardized tests exist, researchers should be examining the influence

of technology on the test results. Even though a study may indicate no statistically

significant difference existed, the study may illuminate other possible reasons. Once a

study does indicate a statistically significant difference exists, other studies should begin

looking for what made that study different. One reason for choosing a causal-comparative

study was to identify best practices that may be working elsewhere (Postlethwaite, in

Pavesic (2012). Furthermore, Postlethwaite, in Pavesic (2012) noted that causal-

comparative studies examine variables that may affect an outcome. Researchers must

continue to conduct these studies so they do not miss the crucial turning point that links

technology to achievement.

Research in the digital divide needs to continue. This polysemous term appears to

be adapting itself to the newer technologies. Originally thought to be the difference

between those who had technology and those who did not, the term has since taken on

multiple meanings. Based on the results of this study, the digital divide may have two

interconnected meanings. The first examines how students are utilizing the technology.

The second involves connections to the Internet. Researchers should not only investigate

each of these meanings, they should also address the connections between the two.

Teachers must be aware of the digital divide so they can address its impact in the

classroom. Studies should examine how teachers implement technology to improve

teaching and learning. According to prior research, one issue regarding technology

implementation involves the rate at which the technology is advancing. The research

indicates that technology is changing at a faster rate than teachers can implement it.
 126

Teachers must ensure the educational goals are driving technology integration, not vice

versa.

Finally, researchers should examine the different types of technology used in the

classroom. At one time, graphing calculators were considered high tech. Today, most

smart phones have an app that allows the student to have multiple graphing utilities.

The problem is many students appear to be using these graphing utilities for simple

computational work. Instead, students should be using technology to discover their own

learning.

Recommendations for future practice. All educators should be cognizant of the

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015). The ESSA is the latest iteration of The

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This law has replaced NCLB (2001).

Administrators should examine the results of this study and use it to implement

professional development plans that address technology in the classroom.

Teachers could also use the results of this study to identify possible changes in

pedagogy that will allow them to use technology as a means of facilitating learning. This

will require the technology to be embedded in the curriculum. Finally, students may use

this study to recognize if they are using their technology to aid in understanding the

content.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) is the reauthorization of the

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Everyone associated

with public education must be familiar with this new law. Furthermore, they must

understand the role technology plays in educating students in the 21st century and
 127

preparing students for a changing global marketplace. Even though the attention has

changed from NCLB to ESSA, it remains focused on achievement and accountability.

One component of this achievement and accountability is the presence of a new

digital divide. As the original divide becomes less of a factor, the new divide is showing

its complexity. Based on the results of this study, the new divide has two components.

The first involves how students are using the technology. The second involves the

connectivity to the Internet. These two components are not mutually exclusive. Many

students are using the Internet for social media, but not all are using it to enhance their

understanding of the content. Additionally, students must become familiar with using the

Internet to work collaboratively. Changes in pedagogy should address collaborative work.

Teachers should acknowledge the importance of working collaboratively and embed that

in the curriculum.

Administrators should use the results of this study to create a professional

development plan that provides teachers with opportunities to experiment with

technology for the purpose of teaching and learning. Other studies have shown that

technology is not changing pedagogy. Instead, technology is supporting older teaching

practices. Teachers should embed the technology in such a manner that their role changes

from teacher to facilitator.

Finally, students should read this study and reflect on their own use of

technology. Are they using technology in a manner that enhances learning? Are they

questioning their learning and using technology to find answers? Students must take a

more active role in learning. The technology they have is a great medium for learning.
 128

References

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs

about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning In Teacher

Education, 27(4), 134-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670

Andersen, M. H. (2011). The world is my school: Welcome to the era of personalized

learning. The Futurist, 45(1), 12-17. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&si

d=b14bf385-8ea7-4130-94a1-5d910ac8d82d%40sessionmgr102&hid=113

Applebee, A. N. (2013). Common core state standards: The promise and the peril in a

national palimpsest. English Journal, 103(1), 25-33. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1442776723/fullte

xtPDF/830F2B187DEF4E67PQ/1?accountid=7374

Arghode, V. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigmatic differences.

Global Education Journal, 2012(4), 155-163. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=24b9

3fc3-f724-4e0f-839b-b6cb8ca3ea54%40sessionmgr4006&vid=4&hid=4102

Atkinson, R. D. (2012). Why the current education reform strategy won't work. Issues in

Science and Technology, 28(3), 29-36. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&si

d=b14bf385-8ea7-4130-94a1-5d910ac8d82d%40sessionmgr102&hid=113

Avidov-Ungar, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2014). TPACK revisited: A systemic perspective

on measures for predicting effective integration of innovative technologies in

 129

school systems. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13(1), 19-31.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.13.1.19

Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2010). Concerns,

considerations, and new ideas for data collection and research in educational

technology studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 29-

52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782560

Becker, L. A., (1999). Effect size calculators. Retrieved May 25, 2016 from

http://www.uccs.edu/~lbecker/

Becker, S. (2011). Ask, don't tell: Can it work for K-12? On the Horizon, 19(3), 226-231.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163931

Bennett, S. S., & Maton, K. K. (2010). Beyond the 'digital natives' debate: Towards a

more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2729.2010.00360.x

Berger, L. (2013). Mathematical language and the common core state standards for

English. English Journal, 102(5), 16-20. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1353651855/fullte

xtPDF/F1BA041AC3904CA4PQ/2?accountid=7374

Betrus, A. (2012). Historical evolution of instructional technology in teacher education

programs: A ten-year update. TechTrends, 56(5), 42-45.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0597-x
 130

Bigham, G. g., & Ray, J. J. (2012). The influence of local politics on educational

decisions. Current Issues in Education, 15(2), 1-11. Retrieved from

http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/996/341

Boutin, S., & Rodgers, J. B. (2011). Jefferson’s classical curriculum: An examination of

the classical influences on Thomas Jefferson’s educational philosophies.

American Educational History Journal, 38(1), 399-412. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&

sid=b14bf385-8ea7-4130-94a1-5d910ac8d82d%40sessionmgr102&hid=113

Braunschweig, D. (2014). ADDIE instructional design model – all phases highlighted.

Retrieved February 25, 2015 from, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Addie.png

Brennan, R. L. (2011). Generalizability theory and classical test theory. Applied

Measurement In Education, 24(1), 1-21. doi:10.1080/08957347.2011.532417

Bressoud, D. (2009). Technology in support of the classroom, MAA Focus, 29(3), 9.

Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/aprmayweb.pdf

Brown, C. C., & Czerniewicz, L. L. (2010). Debunking the 'digital native': beyond digital

apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

26(5), 357-369. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x

Brusic, S. A., & Shearer, K. L. (2014). The ABCs of 21st century skills. (cover story).

Children's Technology & Engineering, 18(4), 6-10. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1533427678/fullte

xtPDF/97B8A795597D4AF5PQ/1?accountid=7374
 131

Bryan, J., & Chalfant, J. C. (1965). The elementary and secondary education act of 1965:

Potential for serving the gifted. Exceptional Children, 32(3), 147-155. Retrieved

from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=de3cee2a-e35e-48cd-86da-

5ecd1a991847@sessionmgr120&hid=120

Bulut, M., & Bulut, N. (2011). Pre service teachers’ usage of dynamic mathematics

software. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 294-299.

http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire

ct=true&db=ehh&AN=71342765&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bunce, D. M., VandenPlas, J. R., Neiles, K. Y., & Flens, E. A. (2010). Development of a

valid and reliable student-achievement and process-skills instrument. Journal of

College Science Teaching, 39(5), 50-55. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=de3cee2a-e35e-

48cd-86da-5ecd1a991847%40sessionmgr120&hid=120

Caltabiano, C. (2013). Economics, common core state standards, and the fourth R. Social

Studies Review, 52, 32-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.

idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1431919598/fulltextPDF/F856E1212423465EPQ/1

?accountid=7374

Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, S. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and

education requirements through 2018. Retrieved from

http://cew.georgetown.edu/jobs2018/.

Ceylan, B., Turk, M., Yaman, F., & Yurdakul, I. K. (2014). Determining the changes of

information and communication technology guidance teacher candidates’

 132

technological pedagogical content knowledge competency, information and

communication technology usage stages and levels. Journal of Theory & Practice

in Education (JTPE), 10(1), 171-201. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/

eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=de3cee2a-e35e-48cd-86da-

5ecd1a991847%40sessionmgr120&hid=120

Chang, C., Liu, C., & Shen, Y. (2012). Are one-to-one computers necessary? An analysis

of collaborative web exploration activities supported by shared displays. Journal

of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 3. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1287024924/fullte

xtPDF/952B569D43424BCFPQ/1?accountid=7374

Chelliah, J., & Clarke, E. (2011). Collaborative teaching and learning: Overcoming the

digital divide? On the Horizon, 19(4), 276-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

10748121111179402

Chen, R. (2011). Preservice mathematics teachers' ambiguous views of technology.

School Science and Mathematics, 111(2), 56-67. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&

sid=720d3746-15ab-4eb5-bb4c-9bd9f8a50c0b%40sessionmgr104&hid=113

Chikasanda, V. K., Mbubzi, Otrel-cass, K., Williams, J., & Jones, A. (2013). Enhancing

teachers' technological pedagogical knowledge and practices: A professional

development model for technology teachers in Malawi. International Journal of

Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 597-622.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9206-8
 133

Claro, M., Nussbaum, M., López, X., & Díaz, A. (2013). Introducing 1 to 1 in the

classroom: A large-scale experience in Chile. Journal of Educational Technology

& Society, 16(3), 315-328. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.

lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1462203826/fulltextPDF/E709F5889DA94E8

6PQ/1?accountid=7374

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS) (2015). Preparing America’s students

for success. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

Courville, K. (2011a). Educational technology: Effective leadership and current

initiatives. Online Submission, Paper presented at the 2011 Louisiana computer

educator’s conference. Retrieved from, http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/

servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED527339

Courville, K. (2011b). Technology and its use in education: Present roles and future

prospects. Online Submission. Paper presented at the 2011 Recovery School

District Technology Summit. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.

gcu.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=1022c0ef-7f4f-453b-bd81-

3e25de4dae3c%40sessionmgr111&hid=101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z

SZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=eric&AN=ED520220

Crowe, C. E., & Ma, X. (2010). Profiling student use of calculators in the learning of

high school mathematics. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(3), 171.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2010.489149

Curtis, D., Bordelon, D., & Teitelbaum, K. (2010). Keep a focus on meaningful reform

efforts instead of political agendas. Planning and Changing, 41(3), 133-146.

 134

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/863241162/fullt

extPDF/63310FBE37324407PQ/1?accountid=7374

Daniels, E., Hamby, J., & Chen, R. (2015). Reading writing reciprocity: Inquiry in the

Classroom. Middle School Journal, 46(4), 9-16. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11

&sid=1da104fe-a4b2-4008-b0d6-fc1a7d1714c2%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4102

Delen, E., & Bulut, O. (2011). The Relationship between students' exposure to

technology and their achievement in science and math. Turkish Online Journal Of

Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(3), 311-317. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13

&sid=1da104fe-a4b2-4008-b0d6-fc1a7d1714c2%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4102

Dillon, M. (2006). What I learned from teaching with technology. MAA Focus, 26(6), 25.

Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/aug-

sept06web.pdf

Djebbari, Z. (2012). Effective teaching with information technologies: Towards an

interactive pedagogy. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(3), 141-144.

Doi:10.5901/jesr.2012.v2n3p141

Dobrovolny, J. L., & Fuentes, S. C. G. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation:

A tool to decide which to use. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 7-14. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/

237234192/fulltextPDF/BEF117CF99C24B6BPQ/1?accountid=7374

Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hansen, L. E. (2012). One-to-one laptop teacher education:

Does involvement affect candidate technology skills and dispositions? Journal of

 135

Research on Technology in Education, 44(2), 121-139. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/910699495/fullt

extPDF/38DEE94247C24E6BPQ/1?accountid=7374

Donovan, L., Green, T. D., & Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st century classroom:

Developing an innovation configuration map. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 50(2), 161-178. doi:10.2190/EC.50.2.a

DuFour, R. DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities

at work: New insights for improving schools. IN: Solution Tree.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible

statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical

sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/methods7/Supplements/GPower3-BRM-Paper.pdf

Friedrich, H., & Hron, A. (2010). Factors influencing pupils' acceptance of an e-learning

system for secondary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research,

42(1), 63-78. doi:10.2190/EC.42.1.c

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-

584. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/

pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=720d3746-15ab-4eb5-bb4c-

9bd9f8a50c0b%40sessionmgr104&hid=113

Galligan, L., Loch, B., McDonald, C., & Taylor, J. A. (2010). The use of tablet and

related technologies in mathematics teaching. Australian Senior Mathematics

Journal, 24(1), 38-51. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.

 136

oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=720d3746-15ab-4eb5-bb4c-

9bd9f8a50c0b%40sessionmgr104&hid=113

Gano, L. R. (2011). Fitting technology to the mathematics pedagogy: Its effect on

students' academic achievement. Journal of College Teaching & Learning

(Online), 8(11), 29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.

org/education/docview/1418722424/fulltextPDF/92FAF28AF5BE4894PQ/1?acco

untid=7374

Gliem, J. A. & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s

alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-Type scales. Retrieved from,

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem%20%26%20Gli

em.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Gore, A. (1998). Remarks by the Vice President Al Gore. Digital divide event. April 28,

1998. Retrieved from, http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/

speeches/edtech.html

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral

sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Grindon, K. (2014). Advocacy at the core: Inquiry and empowerment in the time of

common core state standards. Language Arts, 91(4), 251-266. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1507592936/ful

ltextPDF/2B828742F46D4874PQ/1?accountid=7374

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based,

technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research On Technology In

 137

Education, 43(3), 211-229. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.

oclc.org/education/docview/858614418/fulltextPDF/8B8876B5D50B48ECPQ/

1?accountid=7374

Hathcoat, J. D. (2013). Validity semantics in educational and psychological assessment.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(9). Retrieved from,

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=

4&sid=a5356109-1753-4db2-820271806b39c4d9%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4102

Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school

digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 6(2), 152-161.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/

docview/1022283005/fulltextPDF/50145BF9F463458FPQ/1?accountid=7374

Hodges, C., & Prater, A. (2014). Technologies on the horizon: Teachers respond to the

horizon report. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,

58(3), 71-77. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1518805176/fulltextPDF/552A9698FEDF4616PQ/1?accounti

d=7374

Holland, J., & Holland, J. (2014). Implications of shifting technology in education.

Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(3), 16-25.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/

docview/1518803836/fulltextPDF/EC9BA089328643CFPQ/1?accountid=7374

Hora, M. T., & Holden, J. (2013). Exploring the role of instructional technology in course

planning and classroom teaching: Implications for pedagogical reform. Journal of

 138

Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 68-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-

013-9068-4

House, J. (2011). Effects of classroom computer instruction on mathematics achievement

of a national sample of tenth-grade students: Findings from the education

longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS: 2002) assessment. International Journal of

Instructional Media, 38(4), 391-399. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=da0

0fb34-2bef-4613-ac28-225b09feb342%40sessionmgr4006&vid=1&hid=4102

Hsu, P., & Sharma, P. (2006). A systemic plan of technology integration. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 9(4) Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.

com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1287049769/

fulltextPDF/3C64AE96E20E49F3PQ/1?accountid=7374

Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

Boston

Iding, M., & Crosby, M. E. (2013). Going beyond access: On-line education in Hawaii

and the pacific islands. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 245-252.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9226-8

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2014). ISTE Standards.

Retrieved from, http://www.iste.org/standards

Iversen, O. S., & Brodersen, C. (2008). Building a BRIDGE between children and users:

A socio-cultural approach to child-computer interaction. Cognition, Technology &

Work, 10(2), 83-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0064-1

 139

Jardine, D. (2001). A different pencil: Use technology wisely. MAA Focus, 21(6), 20 -

21. Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/

augsept01web.pdf

Jefferson, T. (1782). Notes on the state of Virginia. Retrieved November 28, 2014 from,

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

Jones, C. C., & Healing, G. G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and

the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344-356.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00370.x

Kassam, A., Iding, M., & Hogenbirk, P. (2013). Unraveling the digital divide: Time well

spent or "wasted"? Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 215-221.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9233-9

Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional

technology integration and student learning. Education and Information

Technologies, 17(2), 137-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9150-8

Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond digital natives and

immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Retrieved from

http://late-dpedago.urv.cat/site_media/papers/j.1365-2729.2010.00371.pdf

Kessinger, T. A. (2011). Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since

1958: A review of seven major initiatives. American Educational History Journal,

38(1), 263-276. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1034734625/fulltextPDF/9B27E9C3DDE84DFAPQ/1?accoun

tid=7374
 140

Kim, C., & Keller, J. (2011). Towards technology integration: the impact of motivational

and volitional email messages. Educational Technology Research &

Development, 59(1), 91-111. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9174-1

Kim, E. (2011). Conceptions, critiques, and challenges in multicultural education:

Informing teacher education reform in the U.S. KEDI Journal of Educational

Policy, 8(2) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1013972203/fulltextPDF/15EDAFF047CC4A9DPQ/1?accoun

tid=7374

Kim, Y. (2009). Validation of psychometric research instruments: The case of

information science. Journal of The American Society For Information Science &

Technology, 60(6), 1178-1191. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21066

Kozdras, D. & Day, S. (2013). Common core state standards and economics: Reading

like a detective, writing like a reporter, and thinking like an economist. Social

Studies Review, 52, 23-31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.

idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1431919613/fulltextPDF/36A713B542B04EB6P

Q/2?accountid=7374

Kratzer, J., & Lettl, C. (2008). A social network perspective of lead users and creativity:

An empirical study among children. Creativity & Innovation Management, 17(1),

26-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00466.x

Kuhn, M. & Dempsey, K. (2011). End the math wars. Retrieved from,

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ954321.pdf.

Kurz, T. L. (2011). Discovering features of web-based algebraic tools via data analysis

to support technology integration in mathematics education. Retrieved from,

 141

http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69882339&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2011). Content, context, computing keys to the national

education technology plan. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 58-63. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/915254359/fullt

extPDF/6EA5BEB674174FEAPQ/1?accountid=7374

Larkin, K. (2012). You use! I use! We use! Questioning the orthodoxy of one-to-one

computing in primary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

44(2), 101-120. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.

org/education/docview/910699512/fulltextPDF/5D77563736B84402PQ/1?accoun

tid=7374

Liang, L., Fulmer, G., Majerich, D., Clevenstine, R., & Howanski, R. (2012). The effects

of a model-based physics curriculum program with a physics first approach: a

causal-comparative study. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 21(1),

114-124. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9287-2

Loveland, T., & Dunn, D. (2014). Teaching engineering habits of mind in technology

education. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 73(8), 13-19. Retrieved from

search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1524958288/fulltextP

DF/864B6CA6956D4EBDPQ/1?accountid=7374

Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. (2012). Do one-to-one initiatives

bridge the way to 21st century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 46(1), 1-30. Retrieved from

 142

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=22

&sid=1da104fe-a4b2-4008-b0d6-fc1a7d1714c2%40sessionmgr4008&hid=127

Male, G., & Pattinson, C. (2011). Enhancing the quality of e-learning through mobile

technology. Campus - Wide Information Systems, 28(5), 331-344.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650741111181607

Mates, B. T. (2012). Information power to all patrons. Library Technology Reports,

48(7), 7-13. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.

org/education/docview/1178998596/fulltextPDF/7AEFB5EF3C8E4085PQ/1?acc

ountid=7374

Meagher, M. (2011). Students' relationship to technology and conceptions of

mathematics while learning in a computer algebra system environment. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/

docview/1008309982/fulltextPDF/2A10FCE7507B4C7DPQ/1?accountid=7374

Measured Progress (July 2014). New England Common Assessment Program 2013 – 14

Technical Report. Retrieved from

http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/

Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/

TechnicalReports/2013-14-NECAP-Math-Reading-Writing-Technical-Report.pdf

Mims-Word, M. (2012). The importance of technology usage in the classroom, does

gender gaps exist. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 5(4),

271. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1418450487/fulltextPDF/B6399D96F39446DFPQ/1?accounti

d=7374
 143

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-

koehler-tcr2006.pdf

Monk, S., Campbell, C., & Smala, S. (2013). Aligning pedagogy and technology: A case

study using clickers in a first-year university education course. International

Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 8(3), 229-241. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1520309396/ful

ltextPDF/89D06EF698634043PQ/1?accountid=7374

Musawi, A. S. (2011). Redefining technology role in education. Creative Education, 2(2),

130-135. DOI:10.4236/ce.2011.22018

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved

April 18, 2011 from, http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html.

New Hampshire Department of Education (2006a). Grade span expectations

(Mathematics). Retrieved from, http://www.education.nh.gov/

instruction/assessment/necap/documents/math_gse.pdf

New Hampshire Department of Education (2006b). Grade span expectations (Reading).

Retrieved from, http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/assessment/

necap/documents/reading_gse.pdf

New Hampshire Department of Education (2006c). Grade span expectations (Writing).

Retrieved from, http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/assessment/

necap/documents/gr5-12_writing_gse.pdf
 144

New Hampshire Department of Education (2012a). Release of the 2012 academic yearly

progress (AYP) reports. Retrieved from,

http://www.education.nh.gov/news/2012/ayp12.htm

New Hampshire Department of Education (2012b). New England Common Assessment

Program (NECAP). Retrieved from http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/

assessment/necap/index.htm

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Public Law PL 107-110

Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (2008). Foundations of education (10th ed.). Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) (2010). About us. Retrieved from,

http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_

Logo_2015.pdf

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). 21st century skills map. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543032.pdf

Parycek, P., Sachs, M., & Schossböck, J. (2011). Digital divide among youth: Socio-

cultural factors and implications. Interactive Technology and Smart Education,

8(3), 161-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17415651111165393

Pavesic, B. J. (2012). Finding advanced characteristics of student population participating

in the study of knowledge: Case of clustering students from slovene TIMSS

advanced study on learning mathematics. Solsko Polje, 23(1), 125-147, 273-274,

294. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1352856941/fulltextPDF/3FADA7A2361B4F32PQ/1?account

id=7374
 145

Petrilli, M. (2012). The newsroom's view of education reform. Education Next, 12(3)

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1237863432/fulltext/9EE28A5CD8074C27PQ/1?accountid=7

374

Pengyi, Z. (2013). Social inclusion or exclusion? When Weibo (microblogging) meets the

"new generation" of rural migrant workers. Library Trends, 62(1), 63-80.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1466014747/fulltextPDF/33D3B2F4B7134C4CPQ/4?accounti

d=7374

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://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/274763505/fulltextPDF/11380B990E6E4484PQ/1?accountid=

7374

Philip, T. M., & Garcia, A. D. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration:

New technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review,

83(2), 300-319,400-401. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.

idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1399327199/fulltextPDF/E298B2E56D6D4FB3

PQ/5?accountid=7374

Poitras, E., Lajoie, S., & Hong, Y. (2012). The design of technology-rich learning

environments as metacognitive tools in history education. Instructional Science,

40(6), 1033-1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9194-1

 146

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/

docview/214629645/fulltextPDF/E0BD7DAA3384476EPQ/1?accountid=7374

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think

differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/214641811/fullt

extPDF/E6CDA0806C1F4BF5PQ/1?accountid=7374

Ralston, A. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming mathematics education (Book

review). Retrieved from http://www.ams.org/notices/200310/rev-ralston.pdf.

Ralston, A. (2004). Research mathematicians and mathematics education: A critique.

Retrieved from http://www.ams.org/notices/200404/fea-ralston.pdf.

Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K- 12 teachers: Technology use

and the second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3),

181-193. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1015179579/fulltextPDF/3F2F3EC0DDC44F54PQ/1?account

id=7374

Richardson, C. J., & Eddy, C. M. (2011). The mathematical argument: Proponents and

opponents of a standardized core. American Educational History Journal, 38(1),

277-288. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/

education/docview/1034734631/fulltextPDF/8EC176BF597846BFPQ/1?accounti

d=7374

Riley, D. (2007). Educational technology and practice: Types and timescales of change.

Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1) Retrieved from

 147

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1287041966/ful

ltextPDF/73BC20FE8D1E462FPQ/1?accountid=7374

Risser, H. S. (2011). What are we afraid of? Arguments against teaching mathematics

with technology in the professional publications of organisations for US

mathematicians. http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=63230905&site=eho

st-live&scope=site

Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated

learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices.

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239-

258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9144-1

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student

information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic

status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291-307. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1448424841/ful

ltextPDF/2D348C7CD73048FBPQ/3?accountid=7374

Roberts, K., Shedd, M., & Norman, R. (2012). The common core standards on

technology: A *SHIFT* in focus for states. New England Reading Association

Journal, 48(1), 56-65,114-115. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1114879281/ful

ltextPDF/7B05BC0E0E964E94PQ/7?accountid=7374
 148

Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge

for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology

and Design Education, 22(3), 271-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-

9147-z

Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop

environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225-241. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1448424932/ful

ltextPDF/61E23099D37F4EA6PQ/1?accountid=7374

Rosen, Y., & Manny-Ikan, E. (2011). The social promise of the time to know program.

Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3), 150-161. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15

&sid=da00fb34-2bef-4613-ac28-225b09feb342%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4102

Rushby, N. (2013). The future of learning technology: Some tentative predictions.

Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2) Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1355669609/ful

ltextPDF/F5B8305A8CB34B0DPQ/1?accountid=7374

Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century

teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=33

&sid=1da104fe-a4b2-4008-b0d6-fc1a7d1714c2%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4102

Saine, P. (2012). iPods, iPads, and the SMARTBoard: Transforming literacy instruction

and student learning. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 74-79,
 149

81. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/

docview/940889699/fulltextPDF/6AD058A9311F4400PQ/1?accountid=7374

Schaub, D. (2012). Civics without a country? Academic Questions, 25(3), 372-376.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12129-012-9307-6

Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill, J. D. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal of

Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 117-121. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&

sid=bed89f46-c55f-450f-b208-466aaad3f838%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4102

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From reckless reform to substantive instructional

improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/218487376/fullt

ext/1593FFA8A4564749PQ/6?accountid=7374

Schweizer, K. (2011). On the changing role of Cronbach’s α in the evaluation of the

quality of a measure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 143-

144. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000069

Serianni, B., & Coy, K. (2014). Doing the math: Supporting students with disabilities in

online courses. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 102-109. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/education/docview/1552688867/ful

ltextPDF/E1A5F9A773BE498FPQ/1?accountid=7374

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of

technology immersion on middle school students' learning opportunities and

achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315. Retrieved from

 150

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=61f

4b17a-e9ec-41d8-b0aa-c7e32040fe82%40sessionmgr103&vid=1&hid=113

Shirley, M. L., Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., Pape, S. J., & Owens, D. T. (2011). The

practicality of implementing connected classroom technology in secondary

mathematics and science classrooms. Retrieved from, http://library.gcu.

edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=

ehh&AN=59355030&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Smith, R. (2014). Crossing the digital divide: A middle years teacher's reflective journey.

Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(1), 41-47. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&si

d=1a4afa36-fcd9-4c5f-8383-7c814d3a36e3%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4102

Soto, V. J. (2013). Which instructional design models are educators using to design

virtual world instruction? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 364.

Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/

pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&sid=1a4afa36-fcd9-4c5f-8383-

7c814d3a36e3%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4102

Streiner, D. (2010). Measure for measure: New developments in measurement and item

response theory. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(3), 180-186. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/222793533/fulltext

PDF/939EBC3ADB8547B9PQ/1?accountid=7374

Sundeen, T., & Sundeen, D. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: access and

acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(2), 8-14. Retrieved from

 151

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1420524015/fullte

xtPDF/2C7AB8E954246B4PQ/1?accountid=7374

Tabach, M. (2011). A mathematics teacher's practice in a technological environment: A

case study analysis using two complementary theories. Technology, Knowledge

and Learning, 16(3), 247-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-011-9186-x

Taylor, J., Stecher, B., O'Day, J., Naftel, S., Le Floch, K. C., & Office of Planning, E. S.

(2010). State and Local Implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act".

Volume IX--Accountability under "NCLB": Final Report. US Department Of

Education; Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/

disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf

The ISTE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS•T) and Performance

Indicators for Teachers. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from,

http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/

NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf

Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2013). Teacher integration of technology into

mathematics learning. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics

Education, 20(2), 69-84. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.

oclc.org/central/docview/1431919641/fulltextPDF/8C60D383D93A4C62PQ/2?ac

countid=7374

Thomas, T., Herring, M., Redmond, P., & Smaldino, S. (2013). Leading change and

innovation in teacher preparation: A blueprint for developing TPACK ready

teacher candidates. TechTrends, 57(5), 55-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-

013-0692-7
 152

Tiantong, M., & Teemuangsai, S. (2013). Student team achievement divisions (STAD)

technique through the Moodle to enhance learning achievement. International

Education Studies, 6(4), 85-92. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/

fulltext/EJ1067595.pdf

TPACK (2012). The TPACK image. Retrieved February 12, 2015 from, http://tpack.org/

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Types of design. Retrieved from,

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/destypes.php

Trotter, A. (2006). National effort. Education Week, 25(35), 48-49. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/202714874/fulltext

PDF/CDA2C0273BB64F60PQ/16?accountid=7374

Tucker, S. Y. (2014). Transforming pedagogies: Integrating 21ST century skills and Web

2.0 Technology. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 15(1),

166-173. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1043020.pdf

U. S. Department of Education (2010). An Overview of the U.S. Department of

Education. Retrieved from, http://www2.ed.gov/print/about/overview/

focus/what.html

Vestal, S. (2008). What I learned…by using an online homework system in calculus I.

MAA Focus, 28(9), 22 - 23. Retrieved from

http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/dec08web.pdf

Vigdor, J. L., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer

technology and student achievement. Working Paper 48. National Center for

Analysis Of Longitudinal Data In Education Research. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511763.pdf
 153

Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can one laptop per child save the world’s poor?

Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 33-XVI. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11

&sid=abb8c982-053f-4298-9e86-42e7b07f74d6%40sessionmgr120&hid=113

Waxman, H. C., Boriack, A., Yuan-Hsuan, L., & MacNeil, A. (2013). Principals'

perceptions of the importance of technology in schools. Contemporary

Educational Technology, 4(3), 187-196. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105536.pdf

Wildstrom, S. (2006). AP Calculus: friend or foe. MAA Focus, 26(6), 30 - 31. Retrieved

from http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/aug-sept06web.pdf

Williams, K. (2013). Introduction. Library Trends, 62(1), 1-12. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/central/docview/1466015137/fullte

xtPDF/3FBA657870AD474CPQ/1?accountid=7374

Williams, P. J. (2013). Research in technology education: Looking back to move

forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 1-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9170-8

Yelland, N., & Neal, G. (2013). Aligning digital and social inclusion: A study of

disadvantaged students and computer access. Education and Information

Technologies, 18(2), 133-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9223-y

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions:

epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of

Education, 48(2), 311-325. doi:10.1111/ejed.12014

 154

Zaiontz, C. (2014). Real statistics using Excel. Retrieved November 25, 2014 from,

http://www.real-statistics.com/reliability/cohens-kappa/

Zhang, S., Duke, N. K., & Jiménez, L. M. (2011). The WWWDOT approach to

improving students' critical evaluation of websites. Reading Teacher, 65(2), 150-

158. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01016
 155

Appendix A

Sample Grade Span Expectations

Mathematics GSE

M(F&A)–10–3

Demonstrates conceptual understanding of algebraic expressions by solving problems

involving algebraic expressions, by simplifying expressions (e.g., simplifying polynomial

or rational expressions, or expressions involving integer exponents, square roots, or

absolute values), by evaluating expressions, or by translating problem situations into

algebraic expressions

Reading GSE

R–10–2 Students identify the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary by...

• R—10—2.1a. Using strategies to unlock meaning (e.g., knowledge of word structure

including prefixes/suffixes, common roots, or word origins; or context clues; or resources

including dictionaries, glossaries, or thesauruses to determine definition, pronunciation,

etymology, or usage of words; or prior knowledge) (State)

Writing GSE

W–10–1 Students demonstrate command of the structures of sentences, paragraphs, and

text by...

• W-10-1.1 Using varied sentence length and structure to enhance meaning (e.g.,

including phrases and clauses) (State).

 156

Appendix B

IRB Approval Letter

 157

Appendix C

Informed Consent
 158

Appendix D

NECAP Released Items (Mathematics)

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
 169

Appendix E

NECAP Released Items (Reading)

170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
 179

Appendix F

NECAP Released Items (Writing)

180
181
182
 183

Appendix G

Power Analysis