The Effect of 11 Technology on the Academic Ach.docx

The Effect of 1:1 Technology on the Academic Achievement of
Students from Designated Low-Income Families
Victoria Scott
University of West Alabama
Running Head: IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON EDUCATION
IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON EDUCATION
This proposal was written as part of the graduate course ED
504, Techniques of Educational Research, under the guidance of
Dr. Chris Moersch.
Abstract
This paper is based on a comprehensive program carried out on
6th grade pupils in a Title 1 elementary school located in
Chicago, Illinois. The aim of the study was to assess the impact
of one to one (1:1) technology on the performance levels of
students from low-income backgrounds.
Chapter One
Introduction
School officials and educators have attempted different
approaches to promote pupil participation and academic
performance, including the implementation of instructional
technologies. The U.S. Department of Education (2002)
observes that the No Child Left Behind Act aims to eliminate
the digital divide, hence enhancing the digital literacy of

students by the time they complete eighth grade regardless of
their age, socioeconomic status, geographic location,
physical/mental impairment, or any other distinguishing
demographic trait.
Technology is the functional tool that people make use of to
improve the extent of their capabilities. Various technologies
are not only used to improve individuals’ abilities to perform
jobs, they are also increasingly utilized in classrooms
worldwide where they enhance student interest and their
performance. Although technology programs can take on many
forms in schools, 1:1 programs, which provide one computer per
student, are increasing in popularity and prevalence in schools
in general and in middle grades in particular (Anderman and
Sayers 2019). These researchers gained experience with the 1:1
programs working in various parts of the country where they
had first-hand experience of the pros and cons of incorporating
1:1 programs within schools. The findings of this research have
been the impetus for the increasing interest in 1:1 program as
well as the high support for middle-school adoption of such
programs.
Statement of the Research Problem
The hypothesis and core aim for this study is to determine
whether 1:1 technology can impact academic achievement and
participation of designated low-income students.
The use of 1:1 Technology alone is not enough to guarantee
stellar academic performance and student participation. It is
vital to ensure that teachers themselves employ the use of best
teaching practices. Administrators and instructors of academic
material are continuously seeking novel ideas to increase the
adoption and use of technology within classrooms as this can
greatly impact academic performance (Mallia and Gorg 2013).
Some of the biggest challenges faced by schools, particularly
those in minority and low-income communities, include low-
class participation rates and poor academic performance (Mallia
and Gorg 2013). The use of 1:1 technology can serve to improve
this state of affairs.

Could teachers increase student productivity by the use of
technology? Anchored instruction theory supports this assertion.
The theory emphasizes the place of practical instruction that is
anchored in real life experiences using technology. This
approach in which learners get the opportunity to interact with
the material increases academic performance and participation
substantially.
Data and Identification of the Problem
Poor academic performance especially in areas such as reading
skills and mathematics in many low-income public schools is a
cause of concern for education stakeholders. This poor
academic performance coupled with low class participation
rates raises a lot of questions about the quality of education in
Chicago’s public schools especially in schools in low-income
and minority neighborhoods. For this study the following
research question was addressed: What impact will 1:1
technology have on the academic performance of low-income
students? The chief research hypothesis for this study is:
Implementing 1:1 technology will drastically increase the
academic performance of low-income students. As the data
below clearly shows, academic performance in public schools
with low-income and minority students is in dire need of
improvement if they are to achieve a secure academic future.
The state of Illinois introduced a new accountability system
whose performance threshold was too high for almost half of all
schools in Chicago, rendering them as probable targets of state
intervention (Illinois Report Card 2013). Based on an
educational report card, almost a fifth of the state’s 3800
schools were rated as “underperforming” (Illinois Report Card
2013). Any school that finds itself in the bottom two rating
levels within the four-level rate system will be the subject of
significant state aid and intervention. It will grant additional
money to the failing students, visits from learning performance
experts, and collaborations with higher-rated schools.
Figure 1

Figure 2 Figure 3
Figures 2 and 3 highlight a significant gap Based on the above
charts, there are huge gaps between the performance of students
from both low-income and non-low-income families in Chicago
as compared to the state average. citywide statistics gleaned
from the public-school system in Chicago. Figure 1
demonstrates that low-income families represent approximately
52% of families in city Chicago with children under 18 years of
age. Moreover, low-income students within the city’s public-
school system account for at least 85% of learners. While
Figure 2 compares student performance in Chicago with
statewide statistics, Figure 3 compares the same variable among
low-income students within the city and those across the entire
state. The latter two figures show that Chicago learners perform
poorer than the state average in all three categories of science,
math and reading. The impact of low-income status on learning
performance is demonstrated by 2009 statistics that demonstrate
how US schools with low a number of low-income students
performed just as well as schools in other developed nations.
However, schools with over three quarters of low-income
students performed at par with countries in the developing
world.
Some cities and towns face a higher burden of hosting and
schooling low-income communities. Chicago is a fitting
example of such a city since over 80% of students within its
public-school system hail from low-income families and
backgrounds (Illinois Report Card 2013). The question that
emerges from this statistic is why the proportion of low-income
students, 85%, is vastly higher than the city’s percentage of
low-income families. The reason for this emerges from the
behavior of the higher socio-economic classes, particularly the
middle-class, who prefer private schools to the inner-city public
schools. Furthermore, the geographical location also plays a
role since middle-class families typically move into the suburbs,

hence drawing farther and farther away from the location of
most public schools. This phenomenon is hardly new or
surprising, as it reflects the decades-old racial segregation that
has characterized the city and its public-school system (Weis, et
al, 2014). Prior to Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the
schools in Chicago served a predominantly White and middle-
class demographic. However, in the following three decades,
this demographic was replaced by largely low-income Black and
Latino communities. The relationship between low
socioeconomic status and low test scores has been well
documented at all levels from the local to the national level
(Weis, et al, 2014). For example, whether one compares the
performance of public schools in Chicago with those around the
state, or whether the comparison is done for public schools
exclusively within Chicago, the results all show that higher
proportions of low-income students within schools is linked to
lower-test scores and overall academic performance on the
PSAE and ISAT (2014).
Impact on Student Achievement
The purpose of this proposed study will be to decide whether
1:1 technology has a significant effect on academic achievement
of low-income students. It has been verified many times over
that students who do not exhibit satisfactory academic
achievement end up living less successful lives in the future as
compared to those that do (Wright, 2009). The Illinois Board of
Education schools report cards demonstrated a pathetic revealed
unacceptable performance by Chicago students. Only 55% of
students met or exceeded state standards in reading on the PSAE
given to 11th grade students. The state of Illinois has a lower
income ratio of 50 that that of the city, 85. And when
comparison is only done between low-income students’ scores,
the difference is smaller since 35% of more exceeded reading
expectations nationally compared to 31% in the city. As part of
this study, the investigation included one key research
hypothesis: Implementing 1:1 Technology will drastically
increase the academic performance of low-income students.

Technology changed the way lessons are taught today in the
classroom. The teaching methodologies have undergone a
paradigm shift from the traditional forms of education to the
more modern ones. The role of the teacher has also changed
from being the only source of information to be the facilitator
of learning. The role of students has also shifted from being
passive receivers of information to active discoverers of
knowledge.
Suihr, et al. (2010) used a two-year sample in elementary
classes where 1:1 students outperformed non-laptop students on
English Language Arts (ELA). In a similar fashion, Shapley et
al () reviewed the Texas 1:1 program to examine the level to
which a sample of middle schools implemented the program.
Additionally, the pilot study further assessed the link between
effect of school implementation, student and teacher level, and
the achievement of students in mathematics and reading. Bebell
and Kay’s study similarly explored the introduction of a state
pilot 1:1 initiative utilizing ELA students math and reading
performance.
Despite the unique research goals, data sources and results,
most papers analyze similar student and teacher outcomes
enabling distinguishing of certain general patterns across
different study outcomes. The studies mentioned collectively
illustrate various common themes surrounding 1:1 programs and
their impact. Bebell and Kay discovered via their research the
change that occurred in teaching and learning habits as a result
of introduction of computers, digital learning environments and
other learning tools. The researchers studied five different
schools which revealed differences in the 1:1 implementation
and results, although they all recorded significant improvements
in teacher practices, student participation, student research
skills, and student achievement relative to the controls.
Research Method
The main methodology for this study will be a quasi-
experimental design utilizing mixed method data collection via
observation of students and data collected from Discovery

Assessment reports progress monitoring. Random Sampling will
also be used in the research methodology. Teachers will
implement the use of 1:1 Technology through the use of
Chromebooks during their mathematics and reading classes.
Teachers will employ the use of interactive lessons and
exercises on the Chromebooks that will give the students the
opportunity to learn using a new and more interactive learning
model. The Discovery Assessment Reports will be used to
determine if they can recall and retain the information taught.
Summary
This data highlights the specific problem of student academic
achievement in Chicago schools compared to the state of
Illinois. This study will focus on low-income 6th grade students
from a Title 1 elementary school. 1:1 Technology empowers
students to take advantage of new forms of learning, develop
digital skills and improve learning effectiveness. This study
will use random sampling as the research methodology. This
study suggests that the introduction of 1:1 technology within
classrooms will improve student academic achievement.
enhance recollection of learning material by students.
Furthermore, the project will carry out observations on students
and review data from Discovery Assessment reports at the
Elementary school for the 6th grade.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The 1:1 technology movement has been a hot topic of debate in
the past few years and their benefits have been scrutinized to
good effect. Various studies have been undertaken to investigate

the impact that 1:1 technology has on academic performance.
Studies have yielded different results and whereas the benefits
are palpable, the cost of instituting the initiative at certain times
may prove too costly. be too high a price to bear. Anchored
instruction theory emphasizes the place of practical instruction
that is anchored in real life experiences using technology.
Teachers are transformed from mere sources of information into
coaches. This theory is widely applied at the primary level and
used to improve mathematic, language and reading
competencies. Anchored instruction provides an environment
for active learning through challenging and motivating learners.
The anchor or story contains embedded data in addition to
extraneous information. Therefore, it is the prerogative of the
learner to decipher, organize and extract all the relevant pieces
of information.
There is a wide range of studies on the subject of technology-
led growth in education. This research concentrates on the
effect of the use of technology at school and at home on both
the social and educational aspects. The researcher will discuss
explore relevant literature supporting the role of technology and
specifically 1:1 technology in improving student academic
performance. for our review in the following sections. There are
very few longitudinal studies that explain technology's causal
relationship to academic performance in America in education.
In summary, technology investment has an ambiguous impact on
education, with such gains being mostly limited. Educational
technology investments are often divided three ways:
educational software, individual student laptops, and general
investment in school Information and Communication
Technology (ICT). The research will focus primarily on the
second form of investment, individual student laptops, which is
currently the biggest trend in education policy. The researchers
will be presenting studies on general Technology investments in
education.
Effect of General ICT in Education
A study carried out in California assessed the use of personal

computers among students between grades 6 to 10. The
randomized controlled experiment involved the free distribution
of computers to children in these learning stages for home use
(Fairlie and Kalil (2016) revealed that while students were more
likely to have a social networking site and spent more time in
direct communication with peers, the impact on educational
outcomes were modest. with only a slight positive contribution
to the children’s social development. However, Faber et al.
(2015) studied the effects of government improvements in ICT
on children's school success and determined that academic
progress improved by increasing internet connection speeds.
The researchers claim that the improvements are produced
uniformly across the country and can thus manipulate external
variations in order to estimate the causal effect (Wright, 2009).
The researchers connected the test scores of primary and
secondary students to the availability of computers in their
homes. They found out that it has a limited impact on the
educational achievement or productivity of the students. In a
study of a Romanian voucher program, Malamud and Pop-
Eleches (2011) sought to assess the impact of computers of
student performance. The program supplied 35000 vouchers,
each worth 200 euros, to be used for the purchase of home
computers for low-income students within the country’s public-
school system. A discontinuity framework for regression was
used to estrimate the causal impact on cognitive and non-
cognitive abilities, computer skills and academic achievement.
The results showed that despite lower scores in English,
Romanian and math, the study group had significantly higher
scores in self-reported fluency measures and computer skills
tests.
Effect of Laptop Programs in School
In 2002, the first large-scale one-to -one laptop system was
introduced in Maine for educational purposes. All of the state's
7th and 8th grade students and teachers were given laptops. The
study involved carrying out a study comparing tests in
handwritten writing results in the year 2000 with the same type

of testing done after the laptops were implemented on the
machine in 2005. Writing efficiency improved by one-third of a
standard deviation but it did not seem to influence other types
of tests (Shapley and Brite 2008). The basic comparisons made
in the study, however, may not be sufficiently rigorous to
establish causality (Wright, 2009).
The simple comparisons revealed in the research does not
provide ample proof of causality. Suhr, et al (2010) studied the
effect of introducing a 1:1 laptop program for students in the
4th and 5th grades within a California school district and
concluded that A quasi-experimental design showed that after
two years, students with laptops performed better in ELA, tests
measuring literary review and response, and writing strategies
than student without said laptops
The results of the Texas Laptop Initiative which was
implemented in 21 state schools, studied the effects. The test
group was paired with an acceptable control group comprised of
schools that did not receive laptops on various criteria such as
school size, district, and minority proportion. The study shows
found some positive effects in some of the classes on reading
abilities (Shapley et al., 2009). There are no discovered
negative effects while conducting the study.
A study conducted by Cristia et al. (2017) looks at the One
Laptop per Child Program in Peru. The goal of this program is
to provide children with laptops for use at school and at home
to enhance learning in one of the world's poorest countries. The
paper focuses on Peru's randomized 1:1 laptop program that was
initiated by the Peruvian government. Fifteen months after the
implementation of the project, the research tests were collected.
The initiative discovered has led to a significant increase in
computer usage both at school and at home. Although there was
no In addition, there is no major benefit on exams in neither
mathematics nor language courses. a small effect on the
students ' cognitive abilities occurred. (Wright, 2009).
Synthesis of Literature Review
The success of both general ICT investments in education and

the implementation of laptop programs is having substantial
impact on students from low-income backgrounds. There is
considerable evidence that computer and cognitive skills are
growing but evidence of spill-over effects on other subjects is
low (Wright, 2009) . The results are unclear however, and it is
difficult to draw any conclusions in the field of study so far.
However, the established literature focuses mostly on the
impact in lower educational levels and often on students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Weis et al. 2014)
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
A 1:1 implementation refers to an initiative in which every
student in the classroom, school, school district, etc., has a
laptop or computer, in the classroom to use and learn with as a
resource. The 1:1 Implementation Classroom was for the
instructor and also for the students involved in this study during
its first year of implementation. This particular Sixth Grade
classroom is one of two Sixth Grade classrooms used in the
education pilot program for City of Chicago District # 299. The
purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research methodology
of random sampling which will be used in the study. Quasi-
experimental research will also be used alongside mixed
methods for data collection through student observations and
data collected from Discovery Assessment reports progress
monitoring. Teachers will implement the use of 1:1 Technology
through the use of Chromebooks during their mathematics and
reading classes. Teachers will employ the use of interactive
lessons and exercises on the Chromebooks that will give the
students the opportunity to learn using a new and more
interactive learning model. Add:
Population

This study will investigate a one to one technology (1:1)
implementation at a Title 1 elementary school in Chicago
Illinois. The accessible population will be the 6th grade
students at __________ Elementary School. This research aimed
to evaluate how one-to-one technology (1:1 will be used
hereafter) actually impacts low-income students’ academic
achievement.
Sample
Participants in this proposed study will be students from two
separate classes in the Sixth Grade. The school has 84.3 percent
of the school’s population that come from low-income
backgrounds. The total number of students who will be
involved in the study would be 10 students. The researchers’
settled on 10 students because it was a reasonable number that
will serve as the appropriate representation of the target
population. The researchers also took into account the limited
resources available for the study. A small and comprehensive
sample size of 10 students would not only be an accurate
representation of the population under observation it would also
be cost effective to the researchers. The sample consists of three
male Caucasian participants, three Hispanic Female
participants, two African American female participants, one
Caucasian female participant, and one African American male
participant. The participants’ ages vary from 10 to 13 years
old.
Sample Technique
This study plans to use quasi-experimental research using mixed
data collected from Discovery Assessment progress report. The
sampling technique that will be used in this particular case is
the random sampling technique. This is because using the
random sampling methodology everyone has an equal chance of
being selected for data collection. Random sampling also
ensures that the sample size is large enough to generalize to the
entire population of 6th grade students. In this case, the total

population of 6th grade students are 70 students. The methods
which will be used in the data collection will be student
observations and data collected from progress monitoring
assessments (Weis et al. 2014).
Role of Participants and Impact on Participants
People involved in this comprehensive research were students of
sixth grade from two separate classes, but at the same Title 1
school in Chicago Illinois. In the classroom, technology
influences the academic achievement and performance of the
learners (Weis et al. 2014).
When undertaking the research project, ethics should always be
considered and taken seriously. The study's researcher aims to
ensure all participants are covered against any damage that may
arise as a result of the job. Researchers in the project will be
inclusive of teachers who will be part and parcel of the
collaborative process.
In the event that damage can be done to participants it is
important that the researcher takes into consideration if the
study can be performed in a safer manner and if the knowledge
obtained warrants any potential harm.
The researchers should ensure to inform both participants and
their parents or guardians of their rights, in addition to seeking
informed consent. While information from the student
evaluation will be used to glean data, participant information is
kept confidential. Such confidentiality extends to student
assessment forms, which will be devoid of any identifying
details. Therefore, numbers will replace actual participant
names. During data collection, the researcher will eb restricted
in access. The researchers should make all participants aware
not only of their right to withdraw from participation, but their
right to request non-use of their data in the research analysis
Variables
There are two variables in this study. The independent variable
is the 1:1Technology implementation. The dependent variable is
the aspect of student achievement. In testing for the results, the
researcher will use a form of Pearson correlation analysis in

order to find out whether or not student achievement was
linearly associated with 1:1 Technology implementation. That
will turn the categorical data into quantitative data.
Timeline
The researchers will collect data over a five-week period. Two
approaches will be used to monitor student involvement. Next,
the researchers will create an Engagement Observation Method
for quantitative data collection. The form will allow for
tracking and collection of data over a course of a lesson on ten
randomly selected students.
Second, the researcher will also use seating charts to record
data about student engagement. Using fast scans of the entire
class at regular intervals of 3 or 5 minutes, the researchers
coded each student as either on-task (+) or off-task-) (under the
name of each student. Although this did not give the researchers
precise behavioral details, the researchers were able to gather a
broader set of data. In addition to student observation methods,
the researchers each documented their observations and field
notes in narrative format for each day that they incorporated
technology into their lessons inside a teacher journal. This data
gathering method will help the researchers to collect more
qualitative data about their personal experiences, achievements
and technology integration failures. The researcher’s journals
will be an informal resource that will be explained after a
lecture, regarding the experiences. The researcher will not map
out any specific students.
Constitutive and Operational Definitions
1:1 Technology- It applies to the technical movement of every
child in the classroom, school, school district, etc., possessing a
laptop or computer, using and studying as a resource in the
classroom.
Anchored Instruction Theory: This applies to the real-world
experience as the core content of instruction for schooling.
Through real world simulation, students get to explore such
problems and develop solutions in various ways. In this context,
the term “anchor” refers to the reality of the living world while

“casting the anchor” refers to the process of establishing and
identifying real world situations in problem solution.
"Anchored" instruction is one of the key educational models
under the constructive theory of learning. A cognitive and
scientific team developed it in 1992, under the guidance of
American professor John Bransford at Vanderbilt University.
The Anchored Theory of Instruction emphasizes learning based
on technology. Students are grounded in the reality of actual
life, while using technology as a carrier, and are thus able to
discover problems, generate queries and ultimate solve these
problems.
Description of Data
Four tests are conducted over the whole school year with 9-12
weeks between each evaluation. The predictive benchmark tests
are intended to forecast the success during the academic year on
the student's next high-stakes test.
Reliability and Validity of Instrument
In this study, the results of Topic Tests in Math, Discovery
Education Assessment (Math), and attendance were used to
determine if 1:1 Technology positively impacts student
academic achievement. The Topic Studies were adapted from
the Pearson enVision Math sequence that Chicago Public
Schools has embraced (Mallia and Gorg 2013).
Collaborative Resources
These resources can be broken down into several components.
The initial chief resource of use are the teachers who are
responsible for the implementation of 1:1 technology,
completing evaluation tasks, providing full progress tracking
evaluations for the participants and analyzing data obtained to
guide instruction. The second resource is the online assessment
program provided and run by the school district. The students
will use this tool to complete their reporting evaluations of
success. The data will then be obtained from the assessment

reports of the program.
Leverage Plan
Resources will be acquired for 1:1 Technology program from
within the school that promotes technology in education. The
school district can be leveraged to provide resources for the
program in the form of laptops to facilitate the 1:1 project
study. The laptops will be vital in being an instrument of study
for the duration of the entire program.
Teachers can employ the use of instructional content in the
transmission of pertinent educational content using a variety of
different digital formats (such as video, slideshows and online
texts). The students can be able to access such content
independently and easily free up the teacher’s individual
resources for other activities. Furthermore, students themselves
can be leveraged for better implementation of the program
through the use of group projects during class time, while
employing the use of online collaborative tools which can
greatly serve to expand the entire scope of their learning.
Partnership with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) will be
crucial to the success of the program. However, even as the
researcher liaises together with the relevant school districts it is
important to ensure that key stakeholders are involved and
brought on board early on. These stakeholders include, teacher,
students, parents, the community and even key school board
members. There will be a working partnership with the school
administrators to ensure that the best and most effective
behavioral models of digital learners and leaders are modeled
effectively.
Limitations
This research was also performed with participants of Sixth
Grade aged 11 and 12. Children at this developmental stage
have lees control than their high school counterparts and hence
rely more on parental support and guidance within their
schooling. Furthermore, not all students within traditional
classroom setups participated in the research whereas all
students were participants in the 1:1 classroom. These

differences between the number of participants could possibly
cause misrepresentation or skewing of data collected, hence
skewing the outcomes.
References
Art. Ii.—Theories Of Education. (2010). Theories of Education,
1-15. doi:10.31826/9781463230463-001
Anderman, L. H., & Sayers, R. (2019). Academic motivation
and achievement in classrooms. In Visible Learning Guide to
Student Achievement (pp. 166–172).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351257848-26
Cady, J. (2012). Alien Education. In The Advocate (Vol. 20,
Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.4148/2637-4552.1095
Chrysostomu, S. (2017). Human Potential, Technology, and
Music Education. In The Oxford Handbook of Technology and
Music Education (pp. 218–224).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.20
Harris, L.|Al-Bataineh, J., T.|Al-Bataineh, M., & Adel. (2015,
November 30). One to One Technology and Its Effect on

Student Academic Achievement and Motivation. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1117604
Laurillard, D. (2007). Technology, pedagogy and education:
concluding comments. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education
(Vol. 16, Issue 3, pp. 357–360).
https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390701614496
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and Technology: Key Issues
and Debates. A&C Black.
Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker,
F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of
Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student
Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 9(4).
Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2010). Surveying Theories and
Philosophies of Mathematics Education. In Theories of
Mathematics Education (pp. 7–32). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-642-00742-2_2
Stakkestad, Victoria, S., Størdal, F., & Guro. (1970, January
01). The Effects of technology on students' academic
performance rollout of individual laptops in norwegian upper
secondary schools. Retrieved from
https://openaccess.nhh.no/nhh-xmlui/handle/11250/2487301
Suhr, K.A., Hernandez, D.A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M.
(2010). Laptops and Fourth-rade Literacy: Assisting the Jump
over the Fourth-Grade Slump. Journal of Technology, Learning,
and Assessment, 9(5).
Van Zyl, W. (2018). Learning and Curriculum in Technology
Education: A Design and Visual Communication Perspective.
Five House Publishing.
Wedege, T. (2010). Commentary on Modalities of a Local
Integration of Theories in Mathematics Education. In Theories
of Mathematics Education (pp. 555–559).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-2_52
Weis, L., Cipollone, K., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Class warfare:
Class, race, and college admissions in top-tier secondary

schools.
Wright, S. (2009). On Supervision - Psychoanalytic and Jungian
Perspectives edited by Petts, Ann & Shapley, Bernard. In
Journal of Analytical Psychology (Vol. 54, Issue 1, pp. 144
146). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5922.2008.01764_2.x
APPENDIX A
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR MINORS
This method represents a research being carried out with
students on the positive and negative effects that technology has
on the achievement of the students. The aim of this research is
to compare the effects that technology has on student
achievement; more specifically the positive and negative
effects, as well as the resources that increase or decrease the
ability of a student to do work in class. The person carrying out
the work is a graduate student at the University of West
Alabama School. When you decide to include your child in this
research, he / she will be asked to complete a questionnaire
about his / her technology skills inside and outside the math
class. The possible benefits from being in this study could be
that information will be learned that would allow teachers to
better a student's ability to do work in the classroom due to the
presence of technology. Teachers will be able to enhance their
classrooms in the future due to the information that prevail from
this research. Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary. Being in it or refusing to be in it, will not affect your
grades or class standing. You are free to change your mind or
stop being in the study at any time. The potential benefit of
being in this study could be the acquisition of knowledge that
would allow teachers to improve the ability of a student to do
classroom work because of the existence of technology. Because
of the knowledge prevailing from this study, teachers will be
able to improve their classrooms in future. Your involvement in
this study is absolutely voluntary. Being in or refusing to be in
it will have no effect on your grades or status in class. You are
free to change your mind at any time, or to avoid being in the

study.
I understand that:
1. My participation is voluntary, and I have the right to refuse
to answer my questions. I will have a chance to discuss any
questions I have about the study with the researcher after
completing the questionnaire at any time. If you chose to not
participate in the study, you will still participate in the review
unit and the grades on the tests will be included in your 6th
marking period grade. The grades however will not be used in
part of the study.
2. My confidentiality is guaranteed. My name will not be
written on the survey. There will be no way to connect me to
the 26 written survey. If any publication results from this
research, I would not be identified by name. Results will be
given anonymously and in group form only, so that neither the
participants nor their schools can be identified.
3. There will be no anticipated personal risks because of
participation in this project.
4. My participation involves reading a written survey of 10
questions and answering those questions in writing. It is
estimated that this survey will take 10 minutes to complete.
5. Approximately 20 students will take part in this study. The
results will be used for the completion of a research project by
the primary researcher.
6. Data and consent forms will be kept separately in a locked
filing cabinet by the investigator and will be destroyed by
shredding when the research has been completed.
You are being asked whether or not you want to participate in
this study. If you wish to participate, and you agree with the
statement below, please sign in the space provided. Remember,
you may change your mind at any point and withdraw from the
study. You can refuse to participate even if your
parent/guardian gives permission for you to participate.

____________________________________
___________________________________
Project Director
Participant/parent signature date
APPENDIX B
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARENTS
This form describes a study being carried out with students on
the positive and negative effects that technology has on the
achievement of the students. The purpose of this research is to
compare the effects that technology has on student achievement;
more specifically the positive and negative effects, as well as
the tools that increase or decrease the ability of a student to do
work in class. The research person is a graduate student at West
Alabama University. When you decide to include your child in
this report, he / she will be asked to complete a questionnaire
on his / her technology skills within and outside the math
classroom.
During the study, students will also be introduced to different
forms of technology such as calculators, computers and
websites related to maths. To assess the impact of technology
on the capacity of your student to do research in the classroom,
students will also be given testing instruments. The reports are
anonymously presented in spreadsheets and table or graph
formats.
During the course of the study the students will use
graphing calculators and the measuring tools will help to
determine if there is an improvement in student achievement
due to the presence of technology in the math classroom. The
potential benefit of being in this study could be the acquisition
of knowledge that would allow teachers to improve the ability
of a student to do classroom work because of the existence of
technology. Because of the information prevailing from this
research, teachers will be able to improve their classrooms in

future. Participation of your child in this study is completely
voluntary.
Being in it or refusing to be in it, will not affect your child's
grades or class standing. S/he is free to change her/his mind or
stop being in the study at any time.
I understand that:
1. Participation of my child is voluntary and after completing
the questionnaire he / she will have the opportunity to discuss
any questions he / she has about the study with the researcher.
Refusing to engage in the study will have no effect on class
grades or scores.
2. The safety of my child is assured. The survey will not have
her / his name written on it. There's no way my child can be
connected to written survey. S / he would not be identified by
name if any publication results from this research. Results will
only be given in group form anonymously, so that neither the
3. Due to participation in this project, there will be no
anticipated personal risks.
4. My child’s participation involves reading and answering in
writing a written survey of 10 questions. This survey is
estimated to take about 10 minutes to complete.
1. There will be about 10 students participating in this study.
The findings will be used by the primary researcher for
finalizing a research project.
1. The investigator must keep data and consent forms separately
in a locked filing cabinet and will be destroyed by shredding
once the work is complete.
You are being asked if you will allow your child to take part in
this study, or not. If you wish to allow participation, and agree
with the statement below, please sign in the space provided.
Note, at any stage you may change your mind, and withdraw
from the report. Your child can refuse to attend, even if you
gave her / him permission to participate. I accept the

information provided in this form and agree to allow my child
to take part in this project as a participant. I'm 18 years old, or
older. I have read the above statements and I understand them.
In my satisfaction, all my questions regarding my child's
inclusion in this study have been answered.
____________________________________
___________________________________
Project Director
APPENDIX C
Technology Survey
1) State your gender
2) grade level __ _
3) Can you define what technology is? (what does it mean to
you?)
4) What forms of technology have you been using in your
classrooms?
5) What forms of technology are you using outside of your
classroom?
6) What kinds of technology are you using in math class?
7) Does the calculator program in your laptop make maths
easier to work with? Why? For what?
8) What kinds of technology do you want to see used in school?
9) Do you feel more confident in math class when calculators
can be used to assist you?
10) Include ideas on how to make maths more fun. (Give 3
suggestions)

APPENDIX D
Student Survey
1. How often do you use your school issued laptop outside of
the classroom for learning purposes? (Note:' Learning' does not
have to be school-related. It can include any time you spend
reading on your computer, discovering data, looking for
knowledge, communicating with experts, researching a subject
you are interested in, writing, sharing ideas and information,
working creatively with others, OR doing homework or school-
related work)
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
2. Do you have Internet access at home?
a. Yes
b. I had access sometimes (i.e. it was very slow or unreliable)
c. No
3. If you have access to one or more non-school issued laptop
computers (including a smartphone, smart TV, iPad, mobile,
laptop, or other device) how often do you use non-school issued
laptops for learning purposes?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
4. How often do you use your school provided laptop for
learning during class time in your English language arts class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never

learning in your science class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
learning in your social studies class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
learning in your math class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
Signature project
by Victoria Scott
Submission date: 05-Mar-2020 09:14PM (UTC-0600)
Submission ID: 1270281418
File name: Victoria_Scott_ED504_SPChapterIII-
FinalSubmission.docx (122.98K)
Word count: 6603
Character count: 35944

46%
SIMILARITY INDEX
32%
INTERNET SOURCES
7%
PUBLICATIONS
39%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 13%
2 6%
3 5%
4 4%
5 3%
6 2%

7 1%
Signature project
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
digitalcommons.brockport.edu
Internet Source
Submitted to University of West Alabama
Student Paper
brage.bibsys.no
Internet Source
www.chicagoreader.com
Internet Source
HARRİS, Jennifer L, AL-BATAİNEH,
Mohammed T. and BATAİNEH, Adel Al-. "One
to One Technology and its Effect on Student
Academic Achievement and Motivation", Ali
Şimşek, 2016.
Publication
Submitted to Western Governors University
Student Paper
Submitted to Weber State University
Student Paper
www.hrpub.org

8 1%
9 1%
10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
13 1%
14 1%
15 1%
16 1%
17 <1%
18 <1%
Internet Source
www.chalkbeat.org
Internet Source
Submitted to Higher Education Commission
Pakistan
Student Paper
Submitted to Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
Student Paper
Submitted to Victoria University
Student Paper
link.springer.com
Internet Source
Submitted to South Bank University
Student Paper
en.wikipedia.org

Internet Source
Submitted to The University of the South Pacific
Student Paper
www.brockport.edu
Internet Source
Submitted to California State University,
Sacramento
Student Paper
19 <1%
20 <1%
21 <1%
22 <1%
23 <1%
24 <1%
25 <1%
26 <1%
27 <1%
28 <1%
29 <1%
www.dcu.ie
Internet Source
Submitted to Angelo State University
Student Paper
Submitted to Varsity College
Student Paper

Submitted to University of Melbourne
Student Paper
doras.dcu.ie
Internet Source
dx.doi.org
Internet Source
ecandtechnology.wikispaces.com
Internet Source
Submitted to Technological University Of The
Philippines
Student Paper
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Internet Source
Submitted to American University in Cairo
Student Paper
www.wbez.org
Internet Source
30 <1%
31 <1%
32 <1%
33 <1%
34 <1%
35 <1%
36 <1%

37 <1%
38 <1%
39 <1%
40
Submitted to Concord University
Student Paper
www.scribd.com
Internet Source
Submitted to University of Maryland, University
College
Student Paper
pure.roehampton.ac.uk
Internet Source
Submitted to American Public University System
Student Paper
Michael N. Fried. "Theories for, in, and of
Mathematics Education", Interchange, 2011
Publication
Submitted to Sheffield Hallam University
Student Paper
Submitted to Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education
Student Paper
Submitted to Griffth University
Student Paper

www.emeraldinsight.com
Internet Source
Submitted to Kenyatta University
<1%
41 <1%
42 <1%
43 <1%
44 <1%
45 <1%
Exclude quotes Off
Exclude bibliography Off
Exclude matches Off
Student Paper
Submitted to Oral Roberts University
Student Paper
Submitted to Laureate Higher Education Group
Student Paper
Submitted to Columbia Southern University
Student Paper
Diana Laurillard. "Technology, pedagogy and
education: concluding comments", Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 2007
Publication

Submitted to University of the Cumberlands
Student Paper
FINAL GRADE
/200
Signature project
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
PAGE 1
Article Error You may need to use an article before this word.
Consider using the article the.
Missing "," You may need to place a comma after this word.
PAGE 2
Article Error You may need to remove this article.
Prep. You may be using the wrong preposition.
PAGE 3

Wrong Form You may have used the wrong form of this word.
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
Wrong Article You may have used the wrong article or
pronoun. Proofread the sentence to make
sure that the article or pronoun agrees with the word it
describes.
PAGE 6

Sentence Cap. Remember to capitalize the first word of each
sentence.
Sentence Cap. Remember to capitalize the first word of each
sentence.
Sp. This word is misspelled. Use a dictionary or spellchecker
when you proofread your work.
PAGE 7
PAGE 8
Confused You have used to in this sentence. You may need to
use two instead.
PAGE 9

PAGE 10
P/V You have used the passive voice in this sentence.
Depending upon what you wish to emphasize in
the sentence, you may want to revise it using the active voice.
PAGE 11

PAGE 12
PAGE 13
Possessive This word may be a plural noun and may not need
an apostrophe.
PAGE 14

Proofread This part of the sentence contains a grammatical
error or misspelled word that makes your
meaning unclear.
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
PAGE 17

PAGE 18
PAGE 19
PAGE 20
PAGE 21
PAGE 22
Confused You have used chose in this sentence. You may need
to use choose instead.
PAGE 23

PAGE 24
PAGE 25
Verb This verb may be incorrect. Proofread the sentence to
make sure you have used the correct form
of the verb.
PAGE 26
Run-on This sentence may be a run-on sentence. Proofread it to
see if it contains too many
independent clauses or contains independent clauses that have
been combined without conjunctions
or punctuation. Look at the "Writer's Handbook" for advice
about correcting run-on sentences.
PAGE 27
Signature projectby Victoria ScottSignature
projectORIGINALITY REPORTPRIMARY SOURCESSignature
projectGRADEMARK REPORTFINAL GRADEGENERAL
COMMENTSInstructor
Signature project
by Victoria Scott
Submission date: 05-Mar-2020 09:13PM (UTC-0600)
Submission ID: 1270280658

File name: Victoria_Scott_ED504_SPChapterIII-
FinalSubmission.docx (122.98K)
Word count: 6603
Character count: 35944

44%
SIMILARITY INDEX
30%
INTERNET SOURCES
5%
PUBLICATIONS
38%
STUDENT PAPERS

1 14%
2 6%
3 5%
4 4%
5 3%
6 2%
7 2%
Signature project
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
digitalcommons.brockport.edu
Internet Source
Submitted to University of West Alabama
Student Paper
brage.bibsys.no
Internet Source
www.chicagoreader.com
Internet Source
HARRİS, Jennifer L, AL-BATAİNEH,
Mohammed T. and BATAİNEH, Adel Al-. "One
to One Technology and its Effect on Student
Academic Achievement and Motivation", Ali
Şimşek, 2016.
Publication
Submitted to Western Governors University
Student Paper

Submitted to American Public University System
Student Paper
www.hrpub.org
8 1%
9 1%
10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
13 1%
14 1%
15 1%
16 <1%
17 <1%
18 <1%
Internet Source
Submitted to Higher Education Commission
Pakistan
Student Paper
www.chalkbeat.org
Internet Source
Submitted to Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
Student Paper
Submitted to Victoria University
Student Paper

en.wikipedia.org
Internet Source
Submitted to The University of the South Pacific
Student Paper
www.brockport.edu
Internet Source
Submitted to Angelo State University
Student Paper
Submitted to Varsity College
Student Paper
Submitted to Technological University Of The
Philippines
Student Paper
19 <1%
20 <1%
21 <1%
22 <1%
23 <1%
24 <1%
25 <1%
26 <1%
27 <1%
28 <1%
www.wbez.org
Internet Source

Submitted to Concord University
Student Paper
Submitted to Sheffield Hallam University
Student Paper
Submitted to Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Melbourne
Student Paper
Submitted to Kenyatta University
Student Paper
Submitted to Oral Roberts University
Student Paper
Submitted to Laureate Higher Education Group
Student Paper
Submitted to Columbia Southern University
Student Paper
Submitted to University of the Cumberlands
Student Paper
Exclude quotes On
Exclude bibliography On
Exclude matches < 6 words
Signature projectby Victoria ScottSignature

projectORIGINALITY REPORTPRIMARY SOURCES
4
The Effect of 1:1 Technology on the
Academic Achievement of
Students from Designated
Low-Income Families
Victoria Scott
Signature Project Stage 1
Chapter1, 2 and 3 (Edited) – Final Submission
1
Running header: Impact of Technology on Education
3
University of West
Alabama
Abstract
This work will be a comprehensive analysis in Chicago Illinois,
using 6th grade participants from a Title 1 elementary school.
This study aimed to determine whether one to one technology
(1:1 will be used hereafter) effects the achievement level of
among students from designated low-income families (Orey et
al. 2009).
Chapter One: Introduction
School officials and educators have attempted different

approaches to promote pupil participation and academic
performance, including the implementation of instructional
technologies. The No Child Left Behind Act has aimed,
according to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), to
eradicate the digital divide and to have children digitally
literate by the end of the eighth grade, independent of age,
socioeconomic status, geographic location and impairment.
Technology is the functional tool that people make use
of to improve the extent of their capabilities. Individuals are
using technology to improve their ability to perform jobs.
Worldwide, classrooms have implemented many forms of
technology to boost student interest and achievement. Although
technology programs can take on many forms in schools, 1:1
program, which provide one computer per student, are
increasing in popularity and prevalence in schools in general
and in middle grades in particular (Anderman and Sayers 2019).
The interest in 1:1 programs and supporting middle schools to
effectively implement them stems in part from the researcher’'s
experiences as a teacher working in various parts of the country
and witnessing first-hand the promise and perils of
incorporating 1:1 technology into schools.
Statement of the Research Problem
The hypothesis and core aim for this study is to determine
whether 1:1 technology can impact academic achievement and
participation of designated low-income students.
The use of 1:1 Technology alone is not enough to guarantee
stellar academic performance and student participation. It is
vital to ensure that teachers themselves employ the use of best
teaching practices. Teachers and administrators are constantly
searching for new ideas that would make classrooms more
technology friendly as this can greatly impact academic
performance (Mallia and Gorg 2013). Poor academic
performance and low-class participation rates is a major
problem in many schools in the country today especially for

schools in low income and minority neighborhoods (Mallia and
Gorg 2013). The use of 1:1 technology can serve to improve this
state of affairs.
Could teachers increase student productivity by the use of
technology? Anchored instruction theory supports this assertion.
The theory emphasizes the place of practical instruction that is
anchored in real life experiences using technology. This
approach in which learners get the opportunity to interact with
the material increases academic performance and participation
substantially.
Data and Identification of the Problem
Poor academic performance especially in areas such as
reading skills and mathematics in many low-income public
schools is a cause of concern for education stakeholders. This
poor academic performance coupled with low class participation
rates raises a lot of questions about the quality of education in
Chicago’s public schools especially in schools in low-income
and minority neighborhoods. For this study the following
research question was addressed: Will 1:1 Technology increase
academic performance of low-income students? As part of this
study, the investigation included one key research hypothesis:
Implementing 1:1 Technology will drastically increase the
academic performance of low-income students. As the data
below clearly shows, academic performance in public schools
with low-income and minority students is in dire need of
improvement if they are to achieve a secure academic future.
Nearly half of Chicago schools have failed to meet the
state's performance threshold on their new accountability
system, making some of them possible targets of state
intervention (Illinois Report Card 2013). The state ranked 20
percent of its nearly 3,800 schools as "underperforming" or
"lowest performer" (Illinois Report Card 2013). Landing at the
bottom two rungs on the new four-level ratings of the state will
trigger significant aid from the state. It will grant additional
money to the failing students, visits from learning performance

experts, and collaborations with higher-rated schools.
Figure 1
4
Figure 2
Figure 3
Massive disparity exists in terms of low-income families in
Chicago’s public schools as compared to citywide statistics. In
Figure 1 above, over 52% of Chicago families that have
children under the age of 18 are classified as low-income. A
further 85% of students in the Chicago Public School system are
low income. Figure 2 & Figure 3 correctly breaks down the
state of student performance in Chicago as compared with
statewide academic in the year 2013. In these statistics Chicago
comes in last time after time after time in the three-key metrics
of performance, Reading, Math and Science. In 2009, U.S.
schools with small proportions of low-income students did as
well as schools anywhere in the world on the International
Student Assessment Program — while American schools with
more than 75 per cent low-income enrollment scored like
schools in developing countries.
Low-income enrollments are the norm in Chicago.
Shockingly, a whopping 85 percent of Chicago Public School
(CPS) students were from low-income families (Illinois Report
Card 2013). Why is the proportion of low-income CPS students
as high as it is when the proportion of low-income families with
children under the age of 18 across the city is 52 per cent? This
is mainly because so many parents of the middle class are
unwilling to send their children to the public schools in the
town. Instead they send them to private schools, or they move to
the suburbs when their kids reach school age (or high school
age).
That is not a new occurrence. It is a legacy of racial

segregation that for decades characterized Chicago and its
public schools (Weis et al. 2014). The schools here moved from
predominantly white and middle-class to largely black, Latino,
and low-income in the 1950s,' 60s and' 70s. Locally, nationally,
and internationally, the link between low-income students and
low-test scores has been well documented (Weis et al. 2014).
It's clear not only when comparing the public schools in
Chicago with the rest of the Illinois state, but also within CPS
itself. The CPS data analysis shows that the higher the
proportion of low-income children in a school, the worse the
school ends up performing on the ISAT and the PSAE — and
the correlation is dramatic (Weis et al. 2014).
The Illinois Board of Education's school report cards once again
showed dreadful performance by CPS students. 55 per cent of
Illinois students met or exceeded state standards in reading on
the Prairie State Achievement Exam given to 11th graders while
only 36 percent of CPS students did so (Weis et al. 2014).
But the low-income ratio across the state is 50 percent—35
points lower than that of Chicago. And when only the low-
income students' test scores are compared, the difference is
much smaller: nationally, 35 percent met or exceeded reading
expectations, compared to 31 percent in Chicago. Likewise, the
test-score gap in math and science is slight when the
comparison is limited to students with low incomes. As part of
this study, the investigation included one key research
hypothesis: Implementing 1:1 Technology will drastically
increase the academic performance of low-income students.
Impact on Student Achievement
The purpose of this proposed study will be to decide whether
1:1 technology has effects on academic achievement of low-
income students. It has been verified many times over that
students who do not exhibit satisfactory academic achievement
end up living less successful lives in future as compared to

those that do (Wright, 2009). Technology changed the way
lessons are taught today in the classroom. The teaching
methodologies have undergone a paradigm shift from the
traditional forms of education to the more modern ones. The
role of the teacher has also changed from being the only source
of information to be the facilitator of learning. The role of
students has also shifted from being passive receivers of
information to active discoverers of knowledge.
Suhr et al. focused on a two-year sample in upper elementary
classes, where students 1:1 outperformed non-laptop student on
tests in English Language Arts (ELA). Similarly, the review of
the Texas 1:1 laptop pilot by Shapley et al. explores the degree
to which a sample of middle schools successfully implemented a
1:1 system, as well as the relationship between the impact of
implementation at school, teacher, and student level, and the
achievement of students in reading and mathematics. The study
by Bebell and Kay also discussed the introduction of a state
pilot 1:1 initiative using ELA students and math achievement as
one of many outcome measures.
Therefore, while each of these studies has unique research
goals, data sources, and outcome measures, most papers analyze
similar teacher and student outcomes and thus it is possible to
distinguish certain general patterns across the different study
outcomes. The studies presented here collectively illustrate
several common themes around 1:1 computing system, and their
effects.
Through their research, Bebell and Kay found that teaching and
learning habits changed when the computers, digital learning
environments and other technological tools were given to
students and teachers. In the five 1:1 schools they studied, they
found that while the program's implementation and results
differed across schools and throughout the three implementation
years, exposure to 1:1 computing resulted throughout
significant improvements in teacher practices, student

achievement, student participation, and student research skills
relative to the control situation. Whether these results are
replicable amongst low-income students is a key aspect the
researchers will seek to investigate in the proposed study.
Research Methods
monitoring. Random Sampling will also be used in the research
methodology. Teachers will implement the use of 1:1
Technology through the use of Chromebooks during their
mathematics and reading classes. Teachers will employ the use
of interactive lessons and exercises on the Chromebooks that
will give the students the opportunity to learn using a new and
more interactive learning model. The Discovery Assessment
Reports will be used to determine if they can recall and retain
the information taught.
Summary
This data highlights the specific problem of student academic
achievement in mathematics. This study will focus on low-
income 6th grade students from a Title 1 elementary school. 1:1
Technology empowers students to take advantage of new forms
of learning, develop digital skills and improve learning
effectiveness. This study will use random sampling as the
research methodology. This study posits that the introduction of
1:1 technology in classrooms would help students remember and
recall information that is being taught. This project will conduct
student observations and review data from Discovery
Assessment reports at the Elementary School for the 6th grade
students.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
1:1 Technology has been a hot topic of debate in the past
few years and their benefits have been scrutinized to good
effect. Various studies have been undertaken to investigate the
impact that 1:1 Technology has on academic performance.
Different studies have yielded different results and whereas the
benefits are palpable, the cost of instituting the initiative at
certain times proves to be too high a price to bear. Anchored
instruction theory emphasizes the place of practical instruction
that is anchored in real life experiences using technology.
Teachers are moved from a source of information into a coach.
It is widely used at the primary level and applied to
competencies in mathematics, reading and language. Anchored
instruction provides an environment for active learning through
challenging and motivating learners. The story or anchor
contains embedded data in addition to extraneous information.
Therefore, it is the prerogative of the learner to decipher,
organize and extract all the relevant pieces of information.
There is a wide range of studies on the subject of
technology-led growth in education. This research concentrates
on the effect of the use of technology at school and at home on
both the social and educational aspects. The researcher will
discuss relevant literature for our review in the following
sections. There are very few longitudinal studies that explain
technology's causal relationship to academic performance in
America in education.
In summary, technology investment has ambiguous
educational impact, and the educational gains are most often
limited. Investments in education technology are typically
divided into three categories: general investment in school ICT,

individual student laptops, and educational software, i.e.
eLearning. The researcher will focus primarily on the second
form of investment, which is currently the biggest trend in
education policy. The researchers will be presenting studies on
general Technology investments in education.
Effect of General ICT in Education
A randomized controlled experiment was performed in
California where more than a thousand computers were
randomly distributed free to children attending 6th-10th grade
for home use (Fairlie and Kalil, 2016). They noted that the
children who were given computers are more likely to have a
social networking site, but also spend more time communicating
directly with peers. Their findings found modest effects on
educational outcomes and only a slight positive contribution to
the social development of children. Faber et al. (2015) studied
the effects of government improvements in ICT on children's
school success in England by increasing the Internet connection
speeds.
The researchers claim that the improvements are produced
uniformly across the country and can thus manipulate external
variations in order to estimate the causal effect (Wright, 2009).
The researchers connected the test scores of primary and
secondary students to the availability of computers in their
homes. They found out that it has a limited impact on the
educational achievement or productivity of the students.
Malamud and Pop-Eleches (2011) investigated a Romanian
voucher program in which 35,000 vouchers worth 200 euros
were issued to subsidize the purchase of low-income home
computers for students enrolled in public schools in Romania.
The study uses a discontinuity framework for regression to
estimate the causal effect on academic achievement, cognitive
abilities, computer skills and different non-cognitive outcomes.
The researchers noted that the group being studied receives
significantly lower scores in Math, English, and Romanian, but
significantly higher scores in a computer skills test and self-
reported computer fluency measures.

Effect of Laptop Programs in School
In 2002, the first large-scale one-to -one laptop system was
introduced in Maine State for educational purposes. All of the
state's 7th and 8th grade students and teachers were given
laptops. The study involved carrying out a study comparing
tests in handwritten writing results in the year 2000 with the
same type of testing done after the laptops were implemented on
the machine in 2005. Writing efficiency is improved by one-
third of a standard deviation but it does not seem to influence
other types of tests (Shapley and Brite 2008). The basic
comparisons made in the study may not however be sufficiently
rigorous to establish causality (Wright, 2009).
The simple comparisons made in the research may not
however be sufficiently thorough to claim causality. Suhr et al.
(2010) are studying the effect of introducing a one-to -one
laptop program for graders 4th and 5th in a California school
district. They use a quasi-experimental design for the research.
After two years, the students obtaining a laptop perform better
in English language arts than non-laptop students, and tests
measuring writing strategies and literary response and review.
The Texas laptop initiative was implemented in 21 state
schools, and Shapley et al. (2009) studied the effects. The test
group was paired with an acceptable control group comprised of
schools that did not receive laptops on various criteria such as
school size, district, and minority proportion. The study shows
some positive effects in some of the classes on reading abilities.
There are no discovered negative effects while conducting the
study.
In addition, a study conducted by Cristia et al. (2017) looks
at the One Laptop per Child Program in Peru. The goal of this
program is to provide children with laptops for use at school
and at home to enhance learning in one of the world's poorest
countries. The paper focuses on Peru's randomized 1:1 laptop
program that was initiated by the Peruvian government. Fifteen

months after the implementation
of the project, the research tests were collected. The initiative
has led to a significant rise in computer usage both at school
and at home. In addition, there is no major benefit on exams in
neither mathematics nor language courses. There is however a
small effect on the students ' cognitive abilities (Wright, 2009).
Synthesis of Literature Review
The success of both general ICT investments in education
and the implementation of laptop programs is having substantial
impact on students from low-income backgrounds. There is
considerable evidence that computer and cognitive skills are
growing but evidence of spill-over effects on other subjects is
low (Wright, 2009) . The results are unclear however, and it is
difficult to draw any conclusions in the field of study so far.
However, the established literature focuses mostly on the
impact in lower educational levels and often on students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Weis et al. 2014)
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
1:1 Implementation refers to an initiative in which every
student in the classroom, school, school district, etc., has a
laptop or computer, in the classroom to use and learn with as a
resource. The 1:1 Implementation Classroom was for the
instructor and also for the students involved in this study during
its first year of implementation. This particular Sixth Grade
classroom is one of two Sixth Grade classrooms used in the

education pilot program for City of Chicago District # 299. The
purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research methodology
of random sampling which will be used in the study. Quasi-
experimental research will also be used alongside mixed
monitoring. Teachers will implement the use of 1:1 Technology
through the use of Chromebooks during their mathematics and
reading classes. Teachers will employ the use of interactive
lessons and exercises on the Chromebooks that will give the
students the opportunity to learn using a new and more
interactive learning model.
Population
This study will be an in-depth analysis of Chicago
Illinois, using 6th grade participants from a Title 1 elementary
school. This research aimed to evaluate how one-to-one
technology (1:1 will be used hereafter) actually impacts low-
income students’ academic achievement.
Sample
Participants in this proposed study will be students from
two separate classes in the Sixth Grade. The school has 84.3
percent of the school’s population that come from low-income
backgrounds. The total number of students who will be
involved in the study would be 10 students. The researchers’
settled on 10 students because it was a reasonable number that
will serve as the appropriate representation of the target
population. The researchers also took into account the limited
resources available for the study. A small and comprehensive
sample size of 10 students would not only be an accurate
representation of the population under observation it would also
be cost effective to the researchers. The sample consists of three
male Caucasian participants, three Hispanic Female
participants, two African American female participants, one
Caucasian female participant, and one African American male

participant. The participants’ ages vary from 10 to 13 years
old.
Sample Technique
data collected from Discovery Assessment progress report. The
sampling technique that will be used in this particular case is
the random sampling technique. This is because using the
random sampling methodology everyone has an equal chance of
being selected for data collection. Random sampling also
ensures that the sample size is large enough to generalize to the
entire population of 6th grade students. In this case, the total
population of 6th grade students are 70 students. The methods
which will be used in the data collection will be student
observations and data collected from progress monitoring
assessments (Weis et al. 2014).
Role of Participants and Impact on Participants
People involved in this comprehensive research were
students of sixth grade from two separate classes, but at the
same Title 1 school in Chicago Illinois. In the classroom,
technology influences the academic achievement and
performance of the learners (Weis et al. 2014).
Plan for Protection of Human Subjects
When undertaking the research project, ethics should
always be considered and taken seriously. The study's
researcher aims to ensure all participants are covered against
any damage that may arise as a result of the job. Researchers in
the project will be inclusive of teachers who will be part and
parcel of the collaborative process.
In the event that damage can be done to participants it is
important that the researcher takes into consideration if the
study can be performed in a safer manner and if the knowledge
obtained warrants any potential harm.
Participants and their parents are told of their rights,

and informed consent is received from the participants' parents
or guardians. Information from the student evaluation will be
used to gather data; however, information from participants will
be kept confidential. Student assessment forms will also be kept
confidential, and no identifying details will be put on any
forms. Numbers will be used instead of their actual names, to
identify participants. When data is collected, the researcher will
be restricted in access. Notify all participants of their right to
withdraw or request that their data not be used in the analysis.
Variables
There are two variables in this study. The
independent variable is the 1:1Technology implementation. The
dependent variable is the aspect of student achievement. In
testing for the results, the researcher will use a form of Pearson
correlation analysis in order to find out whether or not student
achievement was linearly associated with 1:1 Technology
implementation. That will turn the categorical data into
quantitative data.
Timeline
The researchers will collect data over a five-week
period. Two approaches will be used to monitor student
involvement. Next, the researchers will create an Engagement
Observation Method for quantitative data collection. The form
will allow for tracking and collection of data over a course of a
lesson on ten randomly selected students.
Second, the researcher will also use seating charts to
record data about student engagement. Using fast scans of the
entire class at regular intervals of 3 or 5 minutes, the
researchers coded each student as either on-task (+) or off-task-
) (under the name of each student. Although this did not give
the researchers precise behavioral details, the researchers were
able to gather a broader set of data. In addition to student
observation methods, the researchers each documented their
observations and field notes in narrative format for each day

that they incorporated technology into their lessons inside a
teacher journal. This data gathering method will help the
researchers to collect more qualitative data about their personal
experiences, achievements and technology integration failures.
The researcher’s journals will be an informal resource that will
be explained after a lecture, regarding the experiences. The
researcher will not map out any specific students.
Constitutive and Operational Definitions
1:1 Technology- It applies to the technical movement of
every child in the classroom, school, school district, etc.,
possessing a laptop or computer, using and studying as a
resource in the classroom.
Anchored Instruction Theory: This applies to the real-
world experience as the core content of instruction for
schooling. Students explore, solve problems in various ways of
living the real world. The reality of the living world is referred
to as the "anchor," and the process of establishing and
identifying the real living world to solve the problems is
figuratively referred to as "casting the anchor." "Anchored"
instruction is one of the key educational models under the
constructive theory of learning. A cognitive and scientific team
developed it in 1992, under the guidance of American professor
John Bransford at Vanderbilt University. The Anchored Theory
of Instruction emphasizes learning based on technology.
Students take the technology as the carrier, use the reality of the
living world as their main content to discover problems,
generate questions and ultimately solve the problems.
Description of Data
Four tests are conducted over the whole school year with
9-12 weeks between each evaluation. The predictive benchmark
tests are intended to forecast the success during the academic
year on the student's next high-stakes test.
Reliability and Validity of Instrument
In this study, the results of Topic Tests in Math, Discovery

Education Assessment (Math), and attendance were used to
determine if 1:1 Technology positively impacts student
academic achievement. The Topic Studies were adapted from
the Pearson enVision Math sequence that Chicago Public
Schools has embraced (Mallia and Gorg 2013).
Collaborative Resources
Collaborative resources include several different
components. First, the primary resource used will be the
teachers. The teachers are responsible for implementing 1:1
technology, completing evaluation tasks, providing full progress
tracking evaluations for the participants and analyzing data
obtained to guide instruction. Second, access to the online
assessment program is provided by the school district. The
students will use this tool to complete their reporting
evaluations of success. The data will then be obtained from the
assessment reports of the program. Collaborative resources
include several different components. First, the primary
resource used will be the teachers. The teachers are responsible
for implementing 1:1 technology, completing evaluation tasks,
providing full progress tracking evaluations for the participants
and analyzing data obtained to guide instruction. Second, access
to the online assessment program is provided by the school
district. The students will use this tool to complete their
reporting evaluations of success. The data will then be obtained
from the assessment reports of the program.
Leverage Plan
Resources will be acquired for 1:1 Technology
program from within the school that promotes technology in
education. The school district can be leveraged to provide
resources for the program in the form of laptops to facilitate the
1:1 project study. The laptops will be vital in being an
instrument of study for the duration of the entire program.
Teachers can employ the use of instructional content
in the transmission of pertinent educational content using a

variety of different digital formats (such as video, slideshows
and online texts). The students can be able to access such
content independently and easily free up the teacher’s
individual resources for other activities. Furthermore, students
themselves can be leveraged for better implementation of the
program through the use of group projects during class time,
while employing the use of online collaborative tools which can
greatly serve to expand the entire scope of their learning.
Partnership with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS)
will be crucial to the success of the program. However, even as
the researcher liaises together with the relevant school districts
it is important to ensure that key stakeholders are involved and
brought on board early on. These stakeholders include, teacher,
students, parents, the community and even key school board
members. There will be a working partnership with the school
administrators to ensure that the best and most effective
behavioral models of digital learners and leaders are modeled
effectively.
Limitations
This research was also performed with participants of
Sixth Grade aged 11 and 12. At this level, children have less
control than in high-school and depend more on their parents
for guidance and support in their schooling efforts. Also, not
every child in the Traditional Classroom participated in this
research, whereas all students participated in the 1:1
Implementation Classroom. The differences between the number
of participating students could skew or misrepresent the data
collected and evaluated for this analysis, which could then skew
or misrepresent the outcomes.

References
Art. Ii.—Theories Of Education. (2010). Theories of Education,
1-15. doi:10.31826/9781463230463-001
Anderman, L. H., & Sayers, R. (2019). Academic motivation
and achievement in classrooms. In Visible Learning Guide to
Student Achievement (pp. 166–172).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351257848-26
Cady, J. (2012). Alien Education. In The Advocate (Vol. 20,
Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.4148/2637-4552.1095
Chrysostomu, S. (2017). Human Potential, Technology, and
Music Education. In The Oxford Handbook of Technology and
Music Education (pp. 218–224).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.20
Harris, L.|Al-Bataineh, J., T.|Al-Bataineh, M., & Adel. (2015,
November 30). One to One Technology and Its Effect on
Student Academic Achievement and Motivation. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1117604
Laurillard, D. (2007). Technology, pedagogy and education:
concluding comments. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education
(Vol. 16, Issue 3, pp. 357–360).
https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390701614496
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and Technology: Key Issues
and Debates. A&C Black.
Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker,
F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of
Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student
Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and

Assessment, 9(4).
Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2010). Surveying Theories and
Philosophies of Mathematics Education. In Theories of
Mathematics Education (pp. 7–32). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-642-00742-2_2
Stakkestad, Victoria, S., Størdal, F., & Guro. (1970, January
01). The Effects of technology on students' academic
performance rollout of individual laptops in norwegian upper
secondary schools. Retrieved from
https://openaccess.nhh.no/nhh-xmlui/handle/11250/2487301
Suhr, K.A., Hernandez, D.A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M.
(2010). Laptops and Fourth-rade Literacy: Assisting the Jump
over the Fourth-Grade Slump. Journal of Technology, Learning,
and Assessment, 9(5).
Van Zyl, W. (2018). Learning and Curriculum in Technology
Education: A Design and Visual Communication Perspective.
Five House Publishing.
Wedege, T. (2010). Commentary on Modalities of a Local
Integration of Theories in Mathematics Education. In Theories
of Mathematics Education (pp. 555–559).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-2_52
Weis, L., Cipollone, K., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Class warfare:
Class, race, and college admissions in top-tier secondary
schools.
Wright, S. (2009). On Supervision - Psychoanalytic and Jungian
Perspectives edited by Petts, Ann & Shapley, Bernard. In
Journal of Analytical Psychology (Vol. 54, Issue 1, pp. 144
146). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5922.2008.01764_2.x

Appendix A
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR MINORS
This method represents a research being carried out with
students on the positive and negative effects that technology has
on the achievement of the students. The aim of this research is
to compare the effects that technology has on student
achievement; more specifically the positive and negative
effects, as well as the resources that increase or decrease the
ability of a student to do work in class. The person carrying out
the work is a graduate student at the University of West
Alabama School. When you decide to include your child in this
research, he / she will be asked to complete a questionnaire
about his / her technology skills inside and outside the math
class. The possible benefits from being in this study could be
that information will be learned that would allow teachers to
better a student's ability to do work in the classroom due to the
presence of technology. Teachers will be able to enhance their
classrooms in the future due to the information that prevail from
this research. Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary. Being in it or refusing to be in it, will not affect your
grades or class standing. You are free to change your mind or
stop being in the study at any time. The potential benefit of
being in this study could be the acquisition of knowledge that
would allow teachers to improve the ability of a student to do
classroom work because of the existence of technology. Because
of the knowledge prevailing from this study, teachers will be
able to improve their classrooms in future. Your involvement in
this study is absolutely voluntary. Being in or refusing to be in
it will have no effect on your grades or status in class. You are
free to change your mind at any time, or to avoid being in the
study.

I understand that:
1. My participation is voluntary, and I have the right to refuse
to answer my questions. I will have a chance to discuss any
questions I have about the study with the researcher after
completing the questionnaire at any time. If you chose to not
participate in the study, you will still participate in the review
unit and the grades on the tests will be included in your 6th
marking period grade. The grades however will not be used in
part of the study.
2. My confidentiality is guaranteed. My name will not be
written on the survey. There will be no way to connect me to
the 26 written survey. If any publication results from this
research, I would not be identified by name. Results will be
given anonymously and in group form only, so that neither the
3. There will be no anticipated personal risks because of
participation in this project.
4. My participation involves reading a written survey of 10
questions and answering those questions in writing. It is
estimated that this survey will take 10 minutes to complete.
5. Approximately 20 students will take part in this study. The
results will be used for the completion of a research project by
the primary researcher.
6. Data and consent forms will be kept separately in a locked
filing cabinet by the investigator and will be destroyed by
shredding when the research has been completed.
You are being asked whether or not you want to participate in
this study. If you wish to participate, and you agree with the
statement below, please sign in the space provided. Remember,
you may change your mind at any point and withdraw from the
study. You can refuse to participate even if your
parent/guardian gives permission for you to participate.
____________________________________

___________________________________
Project Director
Appendix B
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR PARENTS
This form describes a study being carried out with students on
the positive and negative effects that technology has on the
achievement of the students. The purpose of this research is to
compare the effects that technology has on student achievement;
more specifically the positive and negative effects, as well as
the tools that increase or decrease the ability of a student to do
work in class. The research person is a graduate student at West
Alabama University. When you decide to include your child in
this report, he / she will be asked to complete a questionnaire
on his / her technology skills within and outside the math
classroom.
During the study, students will also be introduced to different
forms of technology such as calculators, computers and
websites related to maths. To assess the impact of technology
on the capacity of your student to do research in the classroom,
students will also be given testing instruments. The reports are
anonymously presented in spreadsheets and table or graph
formats.
During the course of the study the students will use
graphing calculators and the measuring tools will help to
determine if there is an improvement in student achievement
due to the presence of technology in the math classroom. The
potential benefit of being in this study could be the acquisition
of knowledge that would allow teachers to improve the ability
of a student to do classroom work because of the existence of
technology. Because of the information prevailing from this
research, teachers will be able to improve their classrooms in
future. Participation of your child in this study is completely
voluntary.

Being in it or refusing to be in it, will not affect your child's
grades or class standing. S/he is free to change her/his mind or
stop being in the study at any time.
I understand that:
1. Participation of my child is voluntary and after completing
the questionnaire he / she will have the opportunity to discuss
any questions he / she has about the study with the researcher.
Refusing to engage in the study will have no effect on class
grades or scores.
2. The safety of my child is assured. The survey will not have
her / his name written on it. There's no way my child can be
connected to written survey. S / he would not be identified by
name if any publication results from this research. Results will
only be given in group form anonymously, so that neither the
3. Due to participation in this project, there will be no
anticipated personal risks.
4. My child’s participation involves reading and answering in
writing a written survey of 10 questions. This survey is
estimated to take about 10 minutes to complete.
1. There will be about 10 students participating in this study.
The findings will be used by the primary researcher for
finalizing a research project.
1. The investigator must keep data and consent forms separately
in a locked filing cabinet and will be destroyed by shredding
once the work is complete.
You are being asked if you will allow your child to take part in
this study, or not. If you wish to allow participation, and agree
with the statement below, please sign in the space provided.
Note, at any stage you may change your mind, and withdraw
from the report. Your child can refuse to attend, even if you
gave her / him permission to participate. I accept the
information provided in this form and agree to allow my child
to take part in this project as a participant. I'm 18 years old, or
older. I have read the above statements and I understand them.

In my satisfaction, all my questions regarding my child's
inclusion in this study have been answered.
____________________________________
___________________________________
Project Director
Appendix C
Technology Survey
1) State your gender
2) grade level __ _
3) Can you define what technology is? (what does it mean to
you?)
4) What forms of technology have you been using in your
classrooms?
5) What forms of technology are you using outside of your
classroom?
6) What kinds of technology are you using in math class?
7) Does the calculator program in your laptop make maths
easier to work with? Why? For what?
8) What kinds of technology do you want to see used in school?
9) Do you feel more confident in math class when calculators
can be used to assist you?
10) Include ideas on how to make maths more fun. (Give 3
suggestions)
Appendix D Student Survey
1. How often do you use your school issued laptop outside of
the classroom for learning purposes? (Note:' Learning' does not
have to be school-related. It can include any time you spend
reading on your computer, discovering data, looking for
knowledge, communicating with experts, researching a subject

you are interested in, writing, sharing ideas and information,
working creatively with others, OR doing homework or school-
related work)
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
2. Do you have Internet access at home?
a. Yes
b. I had access sometimes (i.e. it was very slow or unreliable)
c. No
3. If you have access to one or more non-school issued laptop
computers (including a smartphone, smart TV, iPad, mobile,
laptop, or other device) how often do you use non-school issued
laptops for learning purposes?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
learning during class time in your English language arts class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
learning in your science class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never

learning in your social studies class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
learning in your math class?
a. Every Day
b. Most Days
c. Sometimes
d. Rarely
e. Never
Page 1 of 8
Signature Project
Overview
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION SIGNATURE PROJECT
CONTEXT STATEMENT
The Signature Project is designed to guide candidates through
the steps for planning and
conducting an in- depth school improvement project focused on
improving teaching and
learning. The project involves an opportunity for candidates to
apply the knowledge, skills, and
behaviors they gain from their respective programs. The
Signature Project is structured and
implemented in a way to improve identified needs within a

The Effect of 11 Technology on the Academic Ach.docx

The Effect of 11 Technology on the Academic Ach.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Effect of 11 Technology on the Academic Ach.docx

Similar to The Effect of 11 Technology on the Academic Ach.docx (20)

More from arnoldmeredith47041

More from arnoldmeredith47041 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Effect of 11 Technology on the Academic Ach.docx