La enseñanza de los contenidos de lengua a través de

iPads

Computer Lab In-Class Computers

computers from the classrooms to supply it. Consequently, students only have daily access to technology if their teacher signs up for the computer lab, or they are enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. A careful look at the AJHS computer lab schedule shows that they lab is being used sporadically. On average, other content area teachers, Science, Social Studies, ELA, or Math, uses the computer lab only one 44 minute period per day.

Figure 15: Comparison of Weekly Time on Technology

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0-200 mins 201-400 mins 401-600 mins 600-800 mins 801 mins or more

SMS AJHS

When comparing the time students at SMS have using technology to the time students at AJHS, the data shows all students at both sites have access to 0-200 minutes of technology per week. Students at SMS are guaranteed a minimum of 800 minutes weekly due to the way technology is integrated into their courses. At AJHS, students are not guaranteed even 200 minutes of time. It is dependent upon teacher discretion. 50% of SMS students are guaranteed 801 or more minutes of time weekly using technology due to their enrollment in Robotics or TV Broadcasting electives.

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

students, which scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 42 students, 23 were Hispanic and 17 were white. Additionally, 18 of the 99 eighth grade students, which scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 18 students, 8 were

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

Tests of Significance

Tests were conducted to test for significance under conditions of ethnicity and grade level. The two largest demographic groups at AJHS and SMS, white and Hispanic, were compared in seventh and eighth grade. The results are discussed below.

A paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores of seventh grade Hispanic students at AJHS and seventh grade Hispanic students at SMS. There was a significant difference in the scores for Hispanic students from AJHS (M= 14.5; SD = 4.33) and Hispanic students from SMS (M= 19.2, SD = 2.58); t (217) = -2.70, p= 0.0074. These results suggest that access to technology has an effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the benchmark assessment increase.

Additionally, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores of eighth grade Hispanic students at AJHS and eighth grade Hispanic students at SMS. There was a significant difference in the scores for Hispanic students from AJHS (M=15.8; SD = 4.86) and Hispanic students from SMS (M= 24.1, SD = 1.70); t (248) = -5.64, p= 0.0001. These results were similar to their seventh grade counterparts and suggest that access to technology has an

effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the benchmark assessment increase.

Next, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores in seventh grade white students at AJHS and seventh grade white students at SMS. There was a significant difference in the scores for white students from AJHS (M=16.2; SD = 4.24) and white students from SMS (M= 18.9, SD = 3.88); t (110) = -2.69, p= 0.0083. Again, these results

suggest that access to technology has an effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the benchmark assessment increase.

Lastly, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores in eighth grade white students at AJHS and eighth grade white students at SMS. There was a

significant difference in the scores for white students from AJHS (M=18.4; SD = 5.13) and white students from SMS (M= 21.0, SD = 3.81); t (106) = -2.40, p= 0.018. As in the other tests, these results suggest that access to technology has an effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the benchmark assessment increase.

Summary

The data presented in this chapter was intended to answer the research questions which each focused on how increased access to technology positively affects student achievement. The initial findings suggest access to technology does affect student performance based on the

performance of students enrolled in courses, which offer more access to technology, compared to those who do not. Interpretations of the data will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5.

Chapter 5

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify if there was cause/effect relationship between student access to technology and student performance on the district benchmark assessment. The quantitative study used test scores and time on technology during the school day to determine a relationship. This chapter will summarize findings, and discuss suggestions for further research in this area.

Summary of Findings

Data for this study was collected in an effort to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the effect of increased access to technology on school achievement among 7/8 grade

students?

a. Does increased access to technology effect demographic groups differently? b. Does increased access to technology close the achievement gap?

Research question number one focused on the effect of increased access to technology and how that effects student achievement. Based on the data collection from Benchmark One and access to technology between the two sites, it appears technology may have had an effect on student achievement. As evident in Figures 3-6, seventh and eighth grade students at SMS outperformed AJHS in all areas of Benchmark One. Figure 7 shows that 60% of seventh grade SMS students scored in the proficient range compared to 22% of AJHS students in the Selected Response Total category. When factoring in the 1.57 times more ELA instruction time AJHS students receive on a weekly basis, as well as the access to more differentiated ELA course choices in the form of Honors, ELD, Accelerated English, and Developmental Reading, and students receive 1.57 times more ELA instruction per week due to the double-block schedule.

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

The data in Figure 8 shows a similar trend regarding eighth performance gaps between the two sites. SMS students outperformed AJHS in all categories. 75% of SMS students scored in the proficient range compared to 21% of AJHS students in the Overall Total category. Eighth grade students at AJHS have the same access to differentiated ELA courses as their seventh grade counterparts. Additionally they receive more 1.57 times more ELA instructional minutes per week due to the double-block schedule.

Based on having more instructional time via the double-block, AJHS students should be able to cover more standards and spend more time learning them. This should equate to

performing better on the Benchmark since students have more time to interact with the material and go deeper into their learning. The differentiated course offerings should also allow teachers and students to focus in on their instructional needs. However, according to the data, this is not the case. There is large achievement gap when the data is compared with the performance of seventh and eighth grade students at SMS.

The data established that an achievement gap does exist between SMS and AJHS based on the results of ELA Benchmark One. The second part to research question one was to determine if access to technology had any effect on student achievement. According to Figure 15, 100% of SMS students have access to technology 600-800 minutes per week. This is a combination of iPads, computer lab access, and student computers banks in the classroom as described in Figure 14. All teachers use technology as a part of their daily coursework. Additionally, the instructional coach assigned to SMS has a very strong background in

Educational Technology and supports teachers in creating lessons and student projects that utilize technology.

Conversely, AJHS students 100% of students have access to 0-200 minutes per week of technology. However, this time is not guaranteed due to the fact a review of the shared computer lab schedule at AJHS shows an average of only one teacher per day reserving the lab for one 44 minute period. That equates to an average of 30 students a week having access to the lab in their core courses. Students enrolled in the STEM elective wheel courses have guaranteed access to technology. According to Figure 15, 24% of AJHS students have 201-400 minutes per week access to technology in either their Robotics, TV Broadcasting, or Digital Citizenship/Coding class.

The purpose of the two sub questions was to examine if access to technology affected demographic groups differently. According to Figure 1 SMS’s largest demographic is white students at 65.4%. While Figure 2 shows white students at AJHS, 24.6%, is the second largest demographic group. Figure 9 and Figure 11 compared the performance of seventh and grade white students at SMS and AJHS. White students at SMS outperformed white students at AJHS in both grade levels and in all categories.

Figure 2 shows Hispanic students at AJHS, 70.6%, as the largest demographic group. Figure 1 demonstrates SMS’s second largest demographic is Hispanic students at 22.6%. Figure 10 and Figure 12 compared the performance of seventh and grade Hispanic students at SMS and AJHS. Hispanic students at SMS outperformed white students at AJHS in both grade levels and in all categories. It is important to note the students that indicated being of Hispanic decent for SMS are identified as English Only students; except for one, which is identified as Reclassified

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

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

students, which scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 42 students, 23 were Hispanic and 17 were white. Additionally, 18 of the 99 eighth grade students, which scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 18 students, 8 were Hispanic and 9 were white. This shows a possible connection between increased access to technology on a regular basis and increased student achievement.

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

disparities in the level of achievement between SMS and AJHS. While, the data shows evidence of higher levels of student achievement based on access to technology, there is not enough evidence to support a relationship between the two.

Findings in the Context of Existing Literature

Project RED’s findings regarding student achievement were similar to the research done in this study as stated by Project RED that “core curriculum using technology at least weekly will improve high-stakes test scores” (p. 14). The study also pointed out that daily use of technology in intervention classes will increase student achievement, too. Students are able to move at their own pace using technology, which frees up teachers to work with small-groups or students on a one-to-one basis. “Project RED found that technology-transformed interventions in ELL, Title I, special education, and reading intervention are the top-model predictor of improved high-stakes test scores” (p. 16). This connects to the achievement gap of students at AJHS enrolled in the Accelerated English, ELD, and Developmental Reading classes. If those students

had better access to technology, teachers would be freed up to differentiate instruction, and according to Project RED, student scores would improve.

ISTE suggests that appropriate implementation is “Teachers’ direct application of technology must be aligned to local and/or state curriculum standards. Technology must be incorporated into the daily learning schedule (i.e., not as a supplement or after-school tutorial)” (p. 3). It is interesting to make the connection to the daily access to technology that SMS students have in their core classes and how they are aligned to the CCSS. This matches with ISTE’s earlier statement regarding the relationship between student achievement and the

integration of technology in instruction. ISTE evaluated the effectiveness of Missouri’s eMINTS program. The quasi-experimental study compared students with access to multi-media and computer technology to those at the same grade level and school without access. “Students who participated in eMINTS classrooms have consistently outperformed their peers in statewide math assessments” (p. 5). This is similar to the data comparing the performance of SMS and AJHS students on the ELA benchmark test. SMS has integrated technology into the daily lives of students in their core classes.

Penuel (2006) discussed the importance of allowing teachers to progress through stages of integrating technology into their lessons on a daily basis. On-going support is key. The daily support received from the instructional coach at SMS has undoubtedly facilitated the progress of the SMS teachers to embrace the use of technology as way to bolster student achievement. The coach helps to design lessons, models lessons in the classroom, and finds resources, in the form of apps and Web 2.0 programs for the teachers to use with their students. It is important to note that AJHS also has an instructional coach assigned to their site. However, the focus is not on

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

Implications for further research

As this school district looks for additional funding to put technology into the hands of more students, and truly implement a one-to-one program, it is important to recognize the potential effect technology has to improve student achievement. Much of the research presented has stated that student achievement with technology has tremendous potential when integrated using the current standards and on a daily basis in core subjects.

A true one-to-one implementation would need to provide on-going, meaningful, and targeted support to teachers. Training on Project-Based Learning activities in the classroom would be paramount. Teachers would need to be supported in looking for ways to infuse technology into their everyday practice. Once this occurred, students could work cooperatively as teams, collaborate on problem solving activities, create new ways of demonstrating their knowledge, and communicate with a broader audience outside of the classroom. A reevaluation of the instructional coach model may be the easiest way to insure this change and provide teachers with the on-going support needed to effectively integrate technology into their coursework.

Based on the demographics of AJHS technology should be playing a bigger role in academic achievement of all students. While the numbers were very small, those students who were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel did out perform those students who were not enrolled. While this is not enough to show a cause/effect relationship due to the sample size, it does show the potential technology has to support students and close the achievement gap. Considering the course offerings at AJHS for EL and students below grade level, based on the aforementioned

research, increased technology in those courses should lead to helping to close the achievement gap. Technology-based intervention programs would need to be further investigated and additional teacher training would need to occur for proper implementation.

Recommendations for further study

The results suggest that a relationship between student achievement and increased access to technology exist, but the research model used is unable to determine causation. Further study should include: correlational studies to attempt offer stronger connections, further achievement gap analysis using additional benchmark data, the broadening of the study to bring in other districts’ data, and multivariate analysis to establish causation and control for the effects of demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity, socio-economic status, parents’ education levels, and access to technology at home. In hindsight, looking at prior benchmark data to establish a baseline would have been very powerful. However, no benchmarks were administered last year due to the shift to CCSS.

Conclusion

The lives of most students are filled with technology. They use it to communicate with each other, to create things, for recreation, and to most importantly to make meaning of the world. However, many students are not experiencing that same access during their time at school. Technology allows students to personalize their learning experiences and reach a broader audience outside of their classroom. Technology not only helps to raise student achievement, as mentioned in numerous studies, but the integration of it into daily instruction allows students to hone the skills necessary to compete in the global marketplace. Technology allows students to learn and apply skills that are rarely addressed in the paper-and-pencil format of the traditional classroom setting. As more and more districts secure funding to implement

greater access to technology in the schools, teachers must be supported in building shared knowledge to embrace the power technology has to positively change the education of students’ lives. According to ISTE (2008), “Our job as educators is to implement instructional strategies that use technology appropriately and prepare students for the world they will face beyond school” (p. 10).

References

Barrios, T. (2004). Laptops for learning: Final report and recommendation of the laptops for learning task force March 22, 2004. Retrieved from http://etc.usf.edu/l4l/report.pdf California adopts first math aligned framework with Common Core. (2013). Retrieved from

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

Ciani, K. D., Summers, J. J., Easter, M. A., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Collaborative learning and positive experiences: Does letting students choose their own groups matter? Educational

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

Francisco, J. M. (2013). Learning in collaborative settings: Students building on each other’s ideas to promote their mathematical understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics,

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

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

J. Daniel (2008). “Freedom to Learn Program Michigan 2007-2008 Evaluation Report,” Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of

Memphis, September 2008.

Greaves, T.; Hayes, J.; Wilson, L.; Gielniak, M.; & Peterson, R., (2010). The technology factor: Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness.

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

International Society for Technology in Education (2008) Technology and student achievement: The indelible link. ISTE Policy Brief.

Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35-53.

New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2009). One-to-one computing: literature review. Retrieved from http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/detresources/about-us/how- we-operate/national-partnerships/digital-education-revolution/rrql/support/lit_review.pdf Olmstead, C., & Rowell, L. (2014). How the 4 Cs fit with the Common Core. Retrieved from

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

Owen, A., Farsaii, S., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2005). Teaching in the one-to-one classroom: It’s not about laptops, it’s about empowerment! Leading and Learning with

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

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/

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

The National Association for Media Literacy Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3(1), 6-7. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/