NAESP-Protheroe

toc

Technology and Student Achievement
Indicators show that technology has the potential to transform education when integrated with emerging models of teaching and learning.

NAESP - National Association of Elementary School Principals

by Nancy Protheroe November/December 2005

For the past 25 years, as schools continue to invest in constantly changing technology, one question remains unanswered: “Is there evidence that using technology leads to higher levels of student learning?” The need for an answer has become more urgent in recent years due to two key factors—an emphasis on standards-based accountability and the substantial financial, instructional, and organizational costs—involved in purchasing and implementing technology. 

Looking at the Research 
Research does not allow us to unequivocally state that technology presents a cost-effective way to improve student achievement. The relationship between the two is complex, and problems with research methodology make it difficult to show more than a correlative relationship. It is also next to impossible to control all the variables in the imperfect research environment of schools (Herman 1994). To compound the issue:
 * Schools have often been uncertain about the outcomes they want to achieve with technology. Is the goal to increase test scores, prepare students for jobs, increase student access to information, or prepare critical thinkers? (Heinecke et al. 1999).
 * Assessments of the impact of technology are really assessments of instruction supported by technology. The effectiveness of the technology is directly tied to the effectiveness of the instructional design, content, and teaching strategies employed by the teacher (Glennan and Melmed 1996).
 * Most achievement tests do not reliably measure the wide range of outcomes sought. New measures need to be used that can assess outcomes such as improved problem-solving skills, deeper understanding, and higher motivation, all of which may be affected by the technology (Glennan and Melmed 1996).
 * The dynamic nature of technology makes meaningful evaluation difficult. By the time long-term studies are completed, the technology being evaluated is often outdated.

Because the technology available to schools, as well as how it is used, has changed dramatically in a brief period of time, an “old” research base cannot provide the answers needed to today’s questions. However, a review of what we have learned can be helpful in informing current practice and future directions.    Studies on particular types of technology use are still being conducted. For example, a recent study of the impact of electronic field trips, provided for seventh and eighth graders by Maryland Public Television and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Technology in Education, found participating students exhibited significantly higher levels of knowledge on three social studies units than students who had not participated. Participating students also demonstrated greater improvement on reading comprehension skills (ORC Macro 2005). 
 * Schacter and Fagnano (1999) presented findings from several meta-analyses indicating that computer- based instruction moderately improved student learning.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
 * Kulik (cited in Kosakowski 1998) presented evidence that using educational technology for drill and practice of basic skills could be highly effective, and Becker (cited in Mergendoller 2000) concluded that students using computer-based integrated learning systems generally did somewhat better than expected.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
 * Stratham and Torell (1996) reviewed 10 meta-analyses on the effectiveness of technology. Their findings indicated that:
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">When properly implemented, computer technology had a significant effect on student achievement, as measured by test scores across subject areas and with students at all levels.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">When used appropriately, computer technology stimulated increased teacher-student interaction and encouraged cooperative learning, collaboration, problem-solving, and student inquiry skills.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Students from computer-rich classrooms demonstrated better behavior and had lower absentee and drop-out rates than students from classrooms lacking computers.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Computer-based teaching was especially effective among populations of at-risk students.
 * Sivin-Kachala et al. (2000) analyzed 219 recent research studies to assess the effect of computer technology on learning and achievement across all learning domains and all ages. In addition to positive effects on achievement in major subject areas, they found effective use of technology fostered the development of more positive student attitudes toward themselves and toward learning.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">What Other Questions Should We Ask? <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
Researchers have also attempted to identify factors that could increase the possibility that technology use will have a positive impact on achievement. For example, Waddoups (2004) analyzed 34 research studies designed to identify the impact of technology integration in teaching and learning on student outcomes. He synthesized several themes in the research into four principles:
 * 1) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Teachers, not technology, are the key to unlocking student potential. A teacher’s training in, knowledge of, and attitude toward technology and related skills are central to effective technology integration.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Curriculum design is critical for successful integration. Teachers must reconsider their methods and curricula in order to effectively integrate technology. They must factor in the needs and situations of learners and their ability to make use of technology.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Technology design largely determines the impact of integration efforts on student achievement. It must be flexible enough to be applied to many settings, deliver rich and timely feedback, and provide students multiple opportunities to engage with the content.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Ongoing formative evaluations are necessary for continued improvements in technology integration.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Linking Technology with New Teaching Models <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
Johnston and Cooley (2001) urge educators to look at emerging models of teaching and learning and ask how technology might support them:<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> “Integrating technology into the curriculum in today’s schools should not mean finding ways that computers can help us teach the same old things in the same old ways. Instead, school leaders have the opportunity to combine technology with emerging models of teaching and learning to transform education.”<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> They address two key elements of new models of teaching and learning that can be supported by use of technology:<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Shank (2000) points out that computers, Web-based technologies, and multimedia presentations are already reshaping the American education system. Examples include online courses, increased use of “learning by doing” experiences for students, and collaborations at-a-distance between students and experts. Research has found that effective integration of technology may actually encourage teachers to move away from reliance on traditional models of instruction. In Byrom’s words, “over time, technology use changes the way teachers teach” (undated).<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Opportunities for Collaboration. The collaborative approach to learning engages students in the learning process and teaches them a lifelong skill.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Opportunities to Construct Knowledge. Constructivism—giving students opportunities to construct their own knowledge—provides students with learning experiences that help them build on their prior knowledge.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Planning for Effective Use of Technology <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
Developing successful lessons that incorporate the use of technology requires thoughtful planning and attention both to the purpose of the instructional activity and to the needs of the students. Traditional questions of instructional planning still apply:
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">How does the lesson fit into the curriculum?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">What are the lesson’s specific educational goals?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">What will the students learn as a result of this activity?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">What materials and activities will be needed for the lesson?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">What experiences do the students have with data analysis and thoughtful discussion?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">How will students know what is expected of them?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">How will students demonstrate what they have learned as the result of this activity?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">References <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">
Byrom, E. “Review of the Professional Literature on the Integration of Technology into Educational Programs,” n.d. Retrieved from http://www.seirtec.org/publications/litreview.html.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Glennan, T. and Melmed, A. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Fostering the Use of Educational Technology: Elements of a National Strategy. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1996.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Heinecke, W.; Blasi, L.; Milman, N.; and Washington, L. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">New Directions in the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Educational Technology. Paper presented at The Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology, 1999.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Herman, J. L. “Evaluating the Effects of Technology in School Reform.” In Barbara Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994: 133–67.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Johnston, M. and Cooley, N. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">What We Know About: Supporting New Models of Teaching and Learning Through Technology. Arlington, Va.: Educational Research Service, 2001.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Kosakowski, J.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> The Benefits of Information Technology. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, 1998.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Mergendoller, J. “Technology and Learning: A Critical Assessment.” Principal 79:3 (January 2000): 5–9.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> ORC Macro. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Summary of Experimental Study of the Ready to Teach Developmental Electronic Field Trip Reader Project. Calverton, Md.: Author, 2005.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Schacter, J. and Fagnano, C. “Does Computer Technology Improve Student Learning and Achievement? How, When, and Under What Conditions?” Journal of Educational Computing Research 20:4 (1999): 329–43.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Shank, R. C. “A Vision of Education in the 21st Century.” Technology Horizons in Education (T.H.E.) Journal 27:6 (January 2000): 42–45.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Sivin-Kachala, J.; Bialo, E.; and Rosso, J. L. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Online and Electronic Research by Middle School Students. Santa Monica, Calif.: Milken Family Foundation, 2000.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Stratham, D. S. and Torell, C. R. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif">Computers in the Classroom: The Impact of Technology on Student Learning. Boise, Idaho: Army Research Institute, Boise State University, 1996. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lss/htmlpublications/spotlights/200/spot206.htm.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Waddoups, G. L. “Technology Integration, Curriculum, and Student Achievement: A Review of Scientifically-based Research and Implications for EasyTech” (executive summary). Portland, Ore.: Learning.com, 2004.<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif"> Nancy Protheroe is director of special research projects at the Educational Research Service. Her e-mail address is nprotheroe@ers.org.