What is
the Effect of Technology Integration on Student Motivation, Engagement, and
Interest?
Final Project for
LT 785 Ð Research Methods in Educational
Technology
Submitted by Lori Fox, Lori Rook, and Sue
Mullin
May 8, 2007
I - Statement of
the Research Question/Problem
What
is the effect of technology integration on student motivation, engagement and
interest?
II - Summary of
the Literature
Success
breeds confidence and confidence leads to more success and higher self-esteem
because of this success. The
Educational Testing Service (ETS) Òfound that studentÕs attitudes, motivation,
and behavior improved very quickly when they used computers in school.Ó
(Chaika, 1999) A junior-high
computer lab coordinator, in Louisiana stated, ÒChildren who donÕt do anything
in class will work if itÕs on the computer.Ó (Chaika, 1999)
Motivation
is a feeling of interest or enthusiasm that makes somebody want to do
something, or something that causes such a feeling. Motivation has been shown
to be a strong indicator of academic achievement. (A. Phillips, ) If this is
the case then academically successful students should be highly motivated.
Today
we find technology everywhere we look.
The students of todayÕs society have grown up with more technological
devices than ever before. If technology motivates students to learn then there
should be evidence of academic success or lack of success should reveal less
motivated students. But, do they
provide extra motivation when it comes to learning? There are many researchers that would say ÒyesÓ to this
question. Yet, others believe that
there is more to it than technology alone.
According
to Lumley (1991), ÒThe struggle of
classroom teachers to deal with student motivation problems is as old as
schooling itselfÓ(p.14). A teacher using technology to motivate students is
more compelling and productive than one just using textbooks and lectures.
These selected technologies can support and empower proven student motivation
principles. In a technology intensive classroom, the teacher or student can
begin an activity by accessing visual images, reams of text, audio, etc. at a
touch of a key. In technology environments, success and failure often take
place only between the student and the computer. Students are so involved in
the technology and creation of a product that making mistakes or being
embarrassed is far from their concerns. This protects their dignity by not
embarrassing them. Technology can be used to help students manipulate objects,
graphs, charts, etc. while receiving personal feedback. In a multimedia
classroom, it can be commonplace for students to be on task for an entire class
period. People walk and children rarely look up because they are so absorbed in
their work. When students are that absorbed, it follows that mastery can be
achieved and maintained.
Through
an in-depth examination of the literature, A. Phillips (n.d.) believes that
intrinsic motivation does not come by just using the computer. In a study done with Japanese math
students, student motivation increased with the use of cooperative learning and
relevant activities. She also
states that secondary students have indicated a lack of motivation due to a
belief that their coursework is irrelevant. She suggests that the incorporation of technology with
student-centered assignments using an effective instructional design is key to
developing a sense of relevancy.
In student-centered instruction students have more ownership in their
learning. They may be able to
choose activities that are more interesting to them and fit their learning
styles.
There
are signs that the idea of ubiquitous computing is starting to get a foothold
in K-12 settings, as a vision of classrooms filled with many computing devices
designed for differing purposes and to be used as needed in the same ways as
pencils and paper and books are used now.
For learning, the implication is that the smaller and less disruptive the
device, the more of a chance it stands of becoming a lifelong-learning tool for
anyone, anywhere, anytime. Early
evaluations indicate that teachers and students respond favorably to handheld
devices, and suggest handheld computers have the potential to affect student
learning positively across curricular topics and instructional activities. Teachers, for example, have indicated
that students are more motivated, spend more time using technology, collaborate
and communicate more, and benefit from having a portable and readily accessible
tool. Students, in turn, have
found handhelds easy to use, fun, and a useful tool for learning (Swan et al.,
2005)
When
students are using technology as a tool or a support for communicating with
others, they are in an active role rather than the passive role of recipient of
information transmitted by a teacher, textbook, or broadcast. The student is
actively making choices about how to generate, obtain, manipulate, or display
information. Technology use allows many more students to be actively thinking
about information, making choices, and executing skills than is typical in
teacher-led lessons. Moreover, when technology is used as a tool to support
students in performing authentic tasks, the students are in the position of
defining their goals, making design decisions, and evaluating their progress
(Effects of Technology on Classrooms and Students, n.d.).
The
process of acquiring and manipulating information and ideas is shortened when
every student has a digital assistant, which means analysis and higher-order
thinking can happen more readily.
Laptops or tablets can help learning because time spent gathering data
is shortened. Having a digital
assistant in any form to take from school to home will mean better work in
terms of research, writing and presentation. The school-to-home element is also vital because all
students have ongoing and equal access to key applications and files without
being handicapped by the older software they might have on home computers or at
the local library ("The One-to-One Tsunami," 2007, April 20).
As
stated by Judson (2006), ÒMany school administrators now advocate that teachers
put aside notions of traditional teaching in favor of developing learning
environments where students share ideas, grapple with the meaning of new
information, and defend divergent thinkingÓ (p. 582). The International Society
for Technology in Education (ISTE) endorses technology integration that is
student-centered and emphasizes teacher facilitation. Today it is commonplace
to discover teachers and students using technology for a variety of purposes.
Few argue that technology will not continue to become even more embedded in
student experience. Teacher perceptions of how often and how effectively
technology is used for student-centered purposes differ dramatically from
student perceptions. ÒWhen establishing any classroom innovation, it is the
teacher who is the key determinant of implementation,Ó according to Judson
(2006). Based on surveys, a strong correlation was found to exist between
computer use and a constructivist view of learning. It should be noted,
however, that survey data has been
proven unreliable because direct observations of these teachers indicate no significant correlation
between practices and attitudes towards technology. Professional development
must enable teachers to access technology in ways that support their proclaimed
student-centered intentions. Judson (2006) states, ÒThe supposition is for
professional development in the area of technology integration to move beyond
training teachers to use specific hardware and software. The goal is for
professional development to take better aim at the target of establishing
constructivist practicesÓ (p. 592). A constructivist classroom is more dynamic
and motivating to students with technology as a powerful learning tool. If
teachers receive training in constructivism, they are more likely to begin
using technology to accomplish this dynamic.
Student-centered
learning approaches have encouraged teachers to modify instructional strategies
and integrate computer technologies across the curriculum. The development of
the World Wide Web, as well as, interactive and collaborative software, makes
technology and extremely powerful, flexible, and motivating tool for students.
According to Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami (2006), ÒAnother key factor affecting the integration of computers
is the technology-related training offered to teachersÓ (p.175). Technology-related
training is very important in developing teacher competency and influencing
teacher attitudes. Teachers
perceive computer integration as an expected and necessary part of the job when
staff development is required. Innovations are more likely to occur if the
perceived value of the innovation and the likelihood of success are high. That
is to say, teachersÕ decisions to use technology in the classroom relate to how
highly they value the innovation and how successful they expect their
application of the innovation to be (Wozney et al., 2006). The general lack of computer use for
more complex purposes may support claims that computers are simply maintaining
existing instructional practices rather than helping learners actively
construct knowledge. The active
construction of knowledge is more motivating to students than electronic
workbook pages. Wozney et al., also found that, ÒTeachersÕ personal use of
computers outside of teaching activities was the strongest predictor of
technology use in the classroomÓ(p.193).
Evidence
of positive gains in student achievement has been shown in many districts such
as West Virginia, Westminster, Co, and Wichita, KS. Districts like West Virginia found that their program was
more cost effective than increasing the number of teachers or decreasing the
class sizes. School districts in
West Virginia have been reported to score better on both state and National
tests. The districts in
Westminster and Wichita showing similar results were part of a study that included high-poverty,
low-performing schools. (Chaika, 1999)
The
most common--and in fact, nearly universal--teacher-reported effect on students
was an increase in motivation. Teachers and students are sometimes surprised at
the level of technology-based accomplishment displayed by students who have
shown much less initiative or facility with more conventional academic
tasks. Teachers talked about
motivation from a number of different perspectives. Some mentioned motivation
with respect to working in a specific subject area, for example, a greater
willingness to write or to work on computational skills. Others spoke in terms
of more general motivational effects--student satisfaction with the immediate
feedback provided by the computer and the sense of accomplishment and power
gained in working with technology.
Students clearly take pride in being able to use the same computer-based
tools employed by professionals. As one teacher expressed it, "Students
gain a sense of empowerment from learning to control the computer and to use it
in ways they associate with the real world." Technology is valued within
our culture. It is something that costs money and that bestows the power to add
value. By giving students technology tools, we are implicitly giving weight to
their school activities. Students are very sensitive to this message that they,
and their work, are important (Effects of Technology on Classrooms and
Students, n.d.).
Swan,
van 't Hooft, Kratcoski, and Unger (2005) asked teachers in an interview if the
use of mobile computing devices affect students' motivation to learn and
engagement in learning. Most
teachers interviewed agreed that their students' motivation to learn and
engagement in learning activities was improved by their use of mobile computing
, which resulted in increased student productivity and improved quality of
work. Quoting one of the fourth
grade teachers interviewed, "the one benefit I've noticed is that they do
write more with the [mobile computing devices'. And I believe that as much as it occurs with reading, the
more you write, the better a writer you become. Interviews with students confirm these findings. Students said that they preferred the
mobile devices over writing by hand and that using them for writing assignments
made the work "easier" and "more fun." (Swan et al.,2005)
A
study done on a wireless writing project in Canada found that there seemed to
be increased student motivation the first year of the study with a slight
decrease in follow-up years.
The study was a cohort study done over a 3year period of time from 2004 Ð
2006. Students began taking
an annual attitude survey in 2003.
The results show that more than 50% of the students participating
reported that they liked writing, which was up slightly from 48% in 2003,
before the project began. It also
showed that students who were in the program for only one year were more
positive than those who had been involved for more than one year. During the
2006 year the 7th grade reported a decrease in both student and teacher
attitudes and support. This could have been due to the low teacher response
rate, options for teachers changed, and an uncertainty about contracts and job
action. Since the reported
responses with this same group, both teachers and students, was much more positive
during the previous year, the low teacher response rate means that this
comparison could be invalid.( S. Jeroski, 2006)
A
Maine study done by the independent Mitchell Institute takes a look at
one-to-one computing at the high school level. The survey reported 79% of the students felt that the
laptops made their lessons more interesting as well as 60% said they felt more
motivated to do their work using a laptop. The teachers felt their students
were more motivated as well. Over
75% reported that they felt their students were more motivated, interacted
more, better prepared, and their ability to work independently as well as
cooperatively was improved. (Studies validate laptop programs in U.S., Canada,
n.d.)
A
laptop immersion program in Pleasanton, CA was studied to see the effects of this
type of a program. This program
was a voluntary program where students were enrolled in the same types of
classes as their non-computer classmates with differences in the types of
activities students engaged in.
The program began with 6th grade students as a pilot program and
expanded to 7th and 8th grades students. Students purchased their own laptops
where possible and those students who could not afford to purchase their own
were able to borrow one for the school year. All students participated in a computer camp to learn the
capabilities of their computers, how to navigate various programs they would be
using throughout the year, rules of usage, student responsibilities and safety
tips. The demographic make up of
the students in the laptop program closely resembled the makeup of the students
not using laptops. (J. Gulek & H. Dmirtas,2005)
Data
used to make comparisons included GPA, course grades, District writing
assessments, Standardized Norm-referenced tests (CAT/6, SAT/9, STAR) and
California Standards Test. Higher GPAs were reported than non-participating
students. End-of-course grades showed a substantial difference between laptop
students and non-laptop students.
A larger number of students in the laptop program met or exceeded
expectations on the writing assessment.
The CAT/6 assessment reported that a high proportion of students were at
or above the National average in language and math. The state content standards test reported that a greater
percentage of students met or exceeded standards. The laptop students had scores 17-20 percentage points
higher than the non-laptop students.
Using baseline data for all the different measures revealed that there
wasnÕt a significant difference in the areas of English, math, writing and
grade point average. A
cross-sectional analysis of years 1, 2, and 3 showed significantly higher
achievement in most all areas. (J. Gulek & H. Dmirtas,2005)
III - Summary and
Conclusions
Research
suggests that properly integrated, technology changes the way the classroom
operates. The studentsÕ learning experiences become richer in nature because
they access more information a faster rate, communicate and share this
information with others more quickly, and manipulate the information in various
forms. This creates a more engaging and motivating student-centered
environment. Successful technology-rich schools generate impressive results for
students, including improved achievement, student attitudes, enthusiasm, and
engagement, richer classroom content, and improved student retention and job
placement rates.
The
single most important factor in any classroom is the teacher, so if he or she
does not embrace laptop, tablet, or other personal device learning, your
program will not be successful.
Schools, districts, and states that spend considerable planning and time
on professional development are seeing their programs work ("The
One-to-One Tsunami," 2007, April 20).
With
the studies showing that technology does have an impact on student motivation
and learning, school districts are challenged to implement programs that
provide equitable opportunities for all of their students. School districts are not all
alike. Not only do school
districts have different circumstances, schools within the district and
classrooms within the schools have different dynamics. Managing these unique situations will
need to be accomplished if we are to provide all students with equitable
opportunities to use technology.
Typical School/Classroom
This research has a number of implications in a typical school. The most important is the value of staff development , not only in the areas of hardware and software, but also in the area of student-centered practices. A concise and organized staff development plan must be developed though the district technology planning committee. Teachers also need a laptop of their own in order to become more familiar with the technology. As each teacher becomes more comfortable with their computer, they will be more likely to use the technology in their classrooms with the students. As the teacher observes student successes, it becomes more likely that teachers will eventually relinquish total control and begin implementing more motivating constructivist practices. Technology integrated lessons need to eventually become part of each teacherÕs repertoire with the support of district technology integrationists.
A tech support staff will be vital to the process of
technology integration, as well because teachers do not have time throughout
their day to troubleshoot the wide variety of problems that can occur with
technology and networks. Teachers will not use the technology, no matter their
beliefs about its value, if it does not function when needed.
Technology in school systems is not a Òfly by nightÓ trend that will eventually disappear. It is now a substantial and influential instructional tool. Knowing the importance of technology integration as a motivating factor in student learning, equity of access has evolved into a vital issue for districts to address through the budgetary process. Step-by-step, grade level by grade level, each building in a district must be prepared to provide the technology needed in each classroom.
Effects of
technology on classrooms and students. (n.d.) Retrieved May 6,
2007 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/
EdTech/effectsstudents.html.
Gulek, J.C. &
Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The
impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2). Available from
http://www.jtla.org/. retrieved
May 4, 2007.
Jeroski, S. Dr.
(2006). Research report: The wireless writing program
2004-2006. Abstract retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.prn.bc.ca/wwp2005.pdf
Judson, E.
(2006). How teachers integrate technology and their
beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal
of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597.
Livingston, P.
(2007, April 20). The one-to-one
tsunami. Technology &
Learning.
Retrieved May 6, 2007,from http://www.techlearning.com/
showArticle.php?articleID=196604373
Lumley, D. (1991). Improving student
motivation. Electronic
Learning,
11 (3), 14
Phillips, A.H. (n.d.). The effects of
student-centered, technology-
based instruction on the intrinsic motivation of secondary
students. Retrieved May 2, 2007,
from Valdosta State University Website:
http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/litreviews/vol4no2/AshleyPhillips_
LitRev.pdf
Studies validate
laptop programs in U.S., Canada.
Retrieved May 3,
2007
from http://www.eschoolnews.com/showstory.cfm?
Swan, K., van 't
Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Unger, D. (2005). Uses
and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms.
Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 99-112.
Technology in the
school: It does make a
difference! Retrieved May
6, 2007 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/
Wozney,
L.,Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P.
C. (2006). Implementing
computer technologies: TeachersÕ perceptions and practices.
Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (1), 173-
207.
Appendix A Ð Analysis of
Three Research Articles
Bibliographic Citation
(APA Style)
Gulek, J.C. &
Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact
of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2). Available from http://www.jtla.org.
retrieved May 4, 2007.
Data used to make
comparisons included GPA, course grades, District writing assessments,
Standardized Norm-referenced tests (CAT/6, SAT/9, STAR) and California
Standards Test. Higher GPAs were reported than non-participating students.
End-of-course grades showed a substantial difference between laptop students
and non-laptop students A cross-sectional analysis of years 1, 2, and 3 showed
significantly higher achievement in most all areas.
The purpose of
the research was to see if there is any correlation between student achievement
and the inclusion of laptops.
GPA, course
grades, District writing assessments, Standardized Norm-referenced tests (CAT/6,
SAT/9, STAR) and California Standards Test.
Data was
collected from a cohort of students.
Students could join at anytime during the 6-8 grade years. Scores compared were from Standardized
tests. A cross-section of scores
from all years of immersion at each grade, were used to create a longitudinal
study.
This program was a voluntary program
where students were enrolled in the same types of classes as their non-computer
classmates with differences in the types of activities students engaged
in. The program began with 6th
grade students as a pilot program and expanded to 7th and 8th grades students.
Higher GPAs were reported than non-participating
students. End-of-course grades showed a substantial difference between laptop
students and non-laptop students.
A larger number of students in the laptop program met or exceeded
expectations on the writing assessment.
The CAT/6 assessment reported that a high proportion of students were at
or above the National average in language and math. The state content standards test reported that a greater
percentage of students met or exceeded standards. The laptop students had scores 17-20 percentage points
higher than the non-laptop students.
Teachers that were teaching
with the laptops were volunteers.
The attitudes and teaching styles could possible effect the way the
students were taught with or without laptops.
Another
limitation is the lack of data showing how much the students used their laptops
for specific types of learning.
With the students being
allowed to choose to be in the program, their attitudes towards technology could
affect their performance. There
was a problem with missing data and scores were not available for the special
needs population.
This program has shown
evidence that there has been significant impact on the students and their
achievement, despite any shortcomings.
Incorporating programs such as this should be a priority for school
districts. Implementing programs
such as the laptop immersion program has a substantial cost. All school districts are not equal,
wherein lies the problem. Not only
are school districts different but, schools and classrooms within schools are
different. This challenges all
schools to be able to create an equitable learning environment for all of their
students. They will need to create
a place where students who lack experience with technology are given
remediation, teachers develop their technology skills, students will have more
access to technology, and standards are set for both students and teachers. This will increase the achievement for
all students.
Bibliographic Citation
(APA Style)
Judson, E.
(2006). How teachers integrate technology and their
beliefs
about learning: Is there a connection? Journal
of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597.
Type of Research:
á
Correlation
¥The author of the study
states that his purpose (p. 589) is to investigate a relationship between
teacher beliefs and observed practice of technology integration. Both variables
in this case are measured and a score is obtained for each person studied,
which is a correlational design.
¥ To investigate the
relationship between teachersÕ beliefs about instruction and the observed practice
of technology integration
¥Direct ObservationÑFocusing
on Integrating Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement (FIT:COM)
¥Survey used to measure
teachersÕ beliefs and attitudesÑThe Conditions that Support Constructivist Uses
of Technology (CSCUT)
¥Conditions that Support
Constructivist Uses of Technology (CSUT) was completed by the teachers
unmonitored and returned by mail. This survey was based on the Teaching,
Learning, and Computing Survey (CRITO, 1998). Developers of this survey
analyzed the Teaching, Learning, and computing Survey data and maintained
pertinent and reliable items resulting in a synthesized and economical CSUT
survey. The developers chose items that were mostly closely associated with
teaching believed to be consistent with constructivist-based reforms and the
accompanying use of technology.
¥Survey data can be
unreliable because teachersÕ reports of their beliefs and teaching practices do
not always match the reality
¥Focusing on Integrating
Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement (FIT:COM)- development was based
on educational standards (ISTE, 2000) and teaching standards from various
disciplines (Natural Council for the Social Studies, 1994; National Council of
Teachers of English, 2000: National Research Council, 1996: National council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 2000) A validity study found the FIT:COM to be a sound
instrument supported by significant inter-rater reliability and internal
consistency measures.
The subjects were 32
classroom teachers who were volunteers and represented grade levels from
primary to secondary. The criteria for selection was the teachersÕ schools had
technology available for integration and the teachers had taken at least one
university course or district supported workshop related to the use of
technology in the classroom. School settings varied, but all of the schools
were capable of providing at least one multimedia computer with a projection
system and access to a computer lab.
¥ According to the author,
the data indicated there is no significant correlation between teacher
practices and teaching philosophy (beliefs) or between teacher practices and
attitudes toward technology. This study also does not support commonly held
beliefs that there is a relationship between the beliefs a teacher holds about
instruction and how technology is integrated. The author goes on to discuss
possible reasons why this study did not bear out commonly held beliefs. Some
reasons were the varying expertise of the teachers and the fact that most
previous studies were based only upon survey data. This study included class
observations, which was different than the larger scale studies.
¥Teacher expertise/experience
as a factor influencing perceptions of their own technology integration (not
taken into account in this study until after its completion) This was seen as
an extraneous variable by the author, but should have been taken into account.
Teachers with more experience identify different features of their teaching and
lessons in their survey responses.
¥ Attitude of Subjects
ThreatÑThe Computer Use Attitudes data indicates that teachers included in this
study have good attitudes towards technology and viewed technology as a
valuable teaching aid. This threat was taken into account.
¥Data Collector
Characteristics ThreatÑthe characteristics of the observers
¥Availability, type, number,
and location of computers
¥Time of school year
¥Student attitude and
abilities
This study shows that
teachersÕ beliefs about instruction do not necessarily resonate in their
classroom practices when integrating technology. At the local level,
professional development must be constructed that is attentive to
student-centered practice and integrating technology in a constructivist
manner. Typically, professional development in these areas is disjointed. This
author emphasizes that professional development should focus on the rationale
of constructivism and not forcing technology use.
Article #3
effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. Journal
of
Research of Technology in Education, 38(1), 99-112.
Type of
Research:
á
Experimental
á
Survey
In the abstract for
this article the authors refer to this as a preliminary study. The survey results were listed in table
form within the article. The
authors also stated numerous times within the article that further research
would be necessary.
This preliminary study by Karen Swan, Mark van Ôt
Hooft, Annette Kratcoski, and Darlene Unger, was designed to begin exploring
the use of mobile computing devices and its effects on student learning. The following questions were
addressed:
1. How do students use mobile computing
devices?
2. Does the use of mobile computing devices
affect studentsÕ motivation to learn and engagement in learning?
3. Does studentsÕ use of mobile computing
devices support learning processes?
Instruments
Used
Data collected from
all six classes included lesson plans, usage data, work samples, student and
teacher interviews, and classroom observations, some of which were
videotaped. To answer the first
question, usage data was collected from all students for whom it was available
using Rubberneck, a hidden software tool that collects usage data from
individual devices. Student and
teacher interview data related to motivation to learn were analyzed using the
constant comparison method to answer the second question. Data for the third question consisted
of student work samples collected using PAAM from GoKnow.
Validity
and Reliability of Instruments Used
The usage data was collected from all students
equally. Interview data from
students and teachers was analyzed using a constant comparison method. The work samples collected from the
students was done through the use of electronic transfer. Work samples from each class were
collected from four students selected in each class as high, medium, and low
achieving, and in all but a single fourth grade class, for selected special
needs students.
Subjects
The subjects were from two sites. The first site was a technology rich
laboratory classroom at a state university in northeast Ohio where local
teachers (who are nominated by their administrators and subjected to a
selection process) bring their classes to complete regular units of study in a
ubiquitous computing environment.
The classes involved at this site included one sixth grade class (n=28),
two fourth grade classes (n=41), and one third grade class (n=16). The second site was a suburban middle
school in northeast Ohio whose student population of approximately 380 is drawn
from two elementary schools, one attended by children from upper middle class,
white-collar families and the other attended by middle class, blue-collar
families.
Results and
Conclusions
The findings suggest both the personalization of
learning supported by such devices and their potential usefulness in amplifying
learning that may already be happening beyond the classroom. They also suggest that students easily
adapt the use of mobile computing devices to their own needs and hint at the
influence of classroom cultures on this appropriation. The results of this study further
indicate that use of mobile computing devices may increase their engagement in
learning activities, which in turn, could lead to an increase in time spent on
learning activities and higher quality work. Further, the observation that students have the opportunity
to choose a technology tool for a specific task or activity needs closer
investigation, as it may provide a clearer insight into how ubiquitous
computing environments can be optimized for learning. Technology in itself wonÕt make the difference; itÕs what
students do with it that does.
Possible
Influence of Extraneous Variables
The amount of students who are qualified as low
income could have an effect on the study.
If these students did not have constant access to technology prior to
the study, the novelty effect may not take place quite as soon for these
students as with those students who had access to technology outside of school
prior to the study.
Possible
Threats to Internal and External Validity
As with any technology that
is introduced in the learning environment, there is always a novelty
effect. Students tend to be more
motivated to use a new piece of technology for learning because it is new. Because of the short time of this study
there could be an effect on the long term results as the students motivation might
change when the novelty of the technology wears off. The Hawthorne effect could also occur in this study. Because some of the data that is
collected is self-reported, students may tend to report what the researchers
expect to hear, not what is really true.
Generalizability
of Results to Local Issues
The fact that one setting in the survey was at a
college and the students traveled to the college to use the laboratory
classroom and the other setting was a middle school where the students regularly
attended could have an effect on the consistency of the study. Technology support at the two different
sites could also play a part in the motivation of the students to use the
technology. If the students had
problems and there was not technology support, those students could be less
interested in pursuing the use of the technology, due to the hassle.
3 Articles:
Research
Report: The Wireless Writing
Program 2004-2006
The
Effects of Student-Centered, Technology-Based Instruction on the Intrinsic
Motivation of
Secondary Students
Learning
With Technology: The Impact of
Laptop Use on Student Achievement
Technology in the
Schools: It Does Make a
Difference!
II Ð Summary of Literature
III Ð Summary and Conclusions
IV ÐEffect that Educational
Technology Could Have in a Typical
School/Classroom
V Ð List of References
Appendix A: Article #1 Ð Analysis of Three Research
Articles
3 Articles:
How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about
learning: Is there a connection?
Improving
Student Motivation
Implementing Computer Technologies: TeachersÕ Perceptions and Practices
I Ð Statement of the Research
Question/Problem
II Ð Summary of Literature
III Ð Summary and Conclusions
IV ÐEffect that Educational
Technology Could Have in a Typical
School/Classroom
V Ð List of References
Appendix A: Article #2 Ð Analysis of Three Research
Articles
3 Articles:
Effects of technology on classrooms and student
The One-to-One
Tsunami
Uses and Effects of
Mobile Computing Devices in K-8 Classrooms
II Ð Summary of Literature
III Ð Summary and Conclusions
IV ÐEffect that Educational
Technology Could Have in a Typical
School/Classroom
V Ð List of References
Appendix A: Article #3 - Analysis of Three Research
Articles
Appendix B: Shared Participation in Writing the Final Project