THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTION ON THE ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT OF FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS

by

Karen Cortina Davis

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Liberty University

April 2012


The Effects of Technology Instruction on the Academic Achievement of

Fifth Grade Students

By Karen Cortina Davis

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia

April 2012

APPROVED BY:

DR. JUDY SHOEMAKER. Ed.D., Chair

DR. RALPH MARINO, Ed.D., Committee

DR. DAVID GORMAN, Ed.D., Committee

DR. SCOTT WATSON Associate Dean, Advanced Programs




ABSTRACT

A digital native is an individual born between 1981 and 2001, and children born after

2001 are called millennials. Educators are expected to meet the needs of today’s

technologically savvy students. Some researchers assert that an academic ‘moral panic’ is

taking place that lacks the empirical and theoretical knowledge to support the claims that

education needs to change to meet the needs of digital natives and millennials. The

problem is that considering that the majority of students today are digital natives are

educators meeting the learning needs of their students. This research study focused on the

use of instructional technology and how it effects student achievement for fifth grade

science and math instruction. Using the 2010 and 2011 math and science CRCT test

scores, the SPSS statistical software was employed to run an independent sample t test to

measure the mean difference between the experimental and control groups. The results

found that the use of technological instruction in this instance did not increase student

academic achievement.

Descriptors: Digital Native, Digital Immigrant, Millennials, Nonconformist, Whiteboard,

PowerPoint, Instructional Technology, e-learning, Web 1.0, and Web 2.0




Dedication

Thank you God for your love, guidance, and the blessings you have given my

family. I dedicate this dissertation to my loving husband Michael who has been my rock

throughout this process. I am thankful for your support and encouragement. To my

wonderful children Lauren and Greg, I am proud and honored to be your mother. You are

both my inspiration and motivation to strive to be the best I can be. To my parents, Sam

and Gilda Cortina, who instilled in me the importance of education.

This dissertation is also dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Jill A. Jones. You

were an amazing teacher and role model. You understood me; we shared the same story.

You were in my heart throughout this process.

ii



Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Judy Shoemaker, for teaching, mentoring, and

guiding me through the dissertation process. You are a wonderful teacher and have been

a blessing in my life. I would like to thank Dr. David Gorman for your encouragement,

support, and guidance. I could always count on your quick assistance to lead me on the

correct path. To my dear friend Thomas Stockdale, thank you for sharing your statistical

knowledge and our love of research. Thank you Arthur Walton you are an outstanding

teacher. I appreciate your assistance with my statistical calculations and your patience

with my many questions. I would like to thank Scott Moore for embracing this study and

his eager participation. Thank you to Karen Guerrero my dear friend who gave her

support throughout the entire process. I would like to also thank Dr. Ralph Marino for

serving on my committee and always being positive. To Mr. Kenneth Butler from Warner

University thank you for your assistance with my statistical calculations.

iii



TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

Background .............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 5
Purpose Statement .................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 5
Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 6
Identification of Terms ............................................................................................. 7
Research Plan ........................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 10

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10
Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................... 10
Overview ................................................................................................................ 12
Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives ................................................................. 12
Traditional Classroom Instruction and Modern Instruction ................................... 14
PowerPoint Instruction ........................................................................................... 19
PowerPoint Instruction and Gender ....................................................................... 27
Web-Based Reading Instruction ............................................................................. 30
Eye-Tacking Technology ....................................................................................... 32
The Web and Student Learning .............................................................................. 34
Virtual Lecture Hall................................................................................................ 45
Web 2.0 Technology and Instruction ..................................................................... 47
Modeling Technology in Instruction ...................................................................... 49
Students’ Use of Computers in Social Settings ...................................................... 52
Students’ Perceptions of Technological Instruction ............................................... 55
Perceptions of Learning and Public Libraries ........................................................ 58
Summary ................................................................................................................ 59

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 61

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 61
Participants ............................................................................................................. 61
Setting/Demographics ............................................................................................ 62
Research Design ..................................................................................................... 63
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 65
Preliminary Procedures .......................................................................................... 67
Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 69
Data Analysis Procedures ....................................................................................... 70

iv



CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 73

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 73
Overview of the Purpose of the Study.................................................................... 73
Method of Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 73
Results .................................................................................................................... 74

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 81

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 81
Summary ................................................................................................................ 81
Restatement of the Problem and Purpose ............................................................... 81
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 82
Discussion of Results ............................................................................................. 82
Implications ............................................................................................................ 87
Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................. 89
Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 89
Limitations.............................................................................................................. 89
Recommendations from the Limitations ................................................................ 91
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................ 92
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 93

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 95

v



LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Major Study Variable for Math Instruction ........................................................ 76

Table 2: Psychometric Properties Comparing Lecture and Technological Instruction in

Math ...................................................................................................................... 78

Table 3: Major Study Variable for Science Instruction .................................................... 79

Table 4: Psychometric Properties Comparing Whiteboard and Lecture Instruction to .... 80

Technological Instruction in Science .................................................................... 80

Figure 1: Distribution Graph of 2010 and 2011 Math and Science CRCT Scores ........... 77

vi



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT)

Georgia Performance Standards (GPS)

Source, Evidence, Explaination, and Knowledge (SEEK)

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

Virtual Lecture Hall (VLH)

vii



CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background

Digital natives, the net-generation, the digital-generation, and millenniums are all

labels to identify today’s learners. Marc Prensky (2001) created the term digital native in

his work Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants to describe the generation of learners

growing up interacting with digital technology. Marc Prensky (2001), educational author,

noted that the average college student has spent less than 5,000 hours of his/her life

reading, yet he/she has spent over 10,000 hours playing video games and 20,000 hours

watching television. The National School Board Association (2007) reported teens

engage in social networking almost as much as they watch television. Marc Prensky

(2001) stated, “Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the

people our educational system was designed to teach” (p.1). Media entrepreneur Rupert

Murdock (2005) agreed with Prensky when he stated that today’s generation and future

generations will “never know a world without ubiquitous broadband Internet access.”

Referring to himself as a digital immigrant he continued, “We may never become true

digital natives, but we can and must begin to assimilate to their culture and way of

thinking” (Murdock, 2005, p. 1).

Researchers Pucel and Stertz (2005), Lu and Gordon (2009), Wiley et al. (2009),

Eysink et al. (2009), Ward, Moule and Lockyer (2009), Cilesiz (2009), and Crowe (2004)

all recognized the need for sound empirical research to determine whether the traditional

or the technological educational methods meet the needs of today’s digital natives.

Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008) characterized today’s generation as “optimistic, team-

oriented achievers who are talented with technology” (p. 776). Technology advocates

1



Prensky (2001), Sprenger (2010), Tapscott (2009), Bennett et al. (2008), and Pucel and

Stertz (2005) asserted that not only have our students changed but the skills and

knowledge they need to possess for their future has changed as well. The Partnership for

21st Century Skills identifies the skills students need to attain. They asserted that students

need to be creators, innovators, critical thinkers, problem solvers, communicators, and

collaborators.

The National School Boards Association (2007) included leadership skills and

technological proficiency as essential 21st century learning tools. The International

Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2009) identified the National Educational

Technology Standards (NETS-A and NETS-S) and Performance Indicators for

administrators and students. The NETS-A included providing a visionary leadership,

digital-age learning culture, excellence in professional practice, systemic improvement,

and digital citizenship. The NETS-S called for teachers to facilitate and inspire student

learning and creativity, design and develop digital-age learning experiences and

assessments, model digital-age work and learning, promote and model digital citizenship

and responsibility, and engage in professional growth and leadership (ISTE NETS, 2010).

No longer should our students sit passively in the classroom while their teacher

lectures. Tapscott (2009) explained that educators must prepare today’s students for

change; by the time students are seniors in college 50% of what they learned freshman

year will no longer be relevant. Speaking of an earlier generation John Dewey stated, “If

we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s we rob them of tomorrow” (Agnello,

White, & Fryer, 2006). His statement summed up the importance of technology

instruction in education today. Researchers Ian Jukes and Anita Dosja (2004) and Marilee

Sprenger (2010) described the learning preferences of digital natives. The authors

2



described them as multi-taskers due to their ability to process sounds and videos before

processing text. Digital natives want information quickly from numerous sources and

networks. The authors reinforced Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner who claimed that

students have to construct their knowledge. Jukes and Dosja’s (2004) learning pyramid

illustrated educators’ perceptions regarding students learning as they found that: students

retain five percent of what they hear, ten percent of what they read, 30% from

demonstration, 50% of what they discuss, 75% of what they practice, and 90% of what

they apply and teach others. Sprenger (2010) explained that individuals’ brains will not

retain 99% of the information they receive. Consider the vast amount of information that

bombards an individual in a single day.

The National School Boards Association (2007) found that 96 % of students with

Internet access engage in some aspect of social networking. Their study found that 60%

of the students use social networking to discuss educational topics, and 50% use it for

schoolwork. Students used social networking to: post messages, share music, videos and

photos, blog, design websites, and create content. Davis (2008) explained that the

nonconformist is a new label that has emerged for the learner who creates and designs

content using technology. The nonconformist is creative, inquisitive, a leader, and

innovative challenging the rules and limits. The nonconformists are the leaders in

producing and editing online content. Social networking could be a great educational

tool; however, as Sprenger (2010) noted most school systems prohibit access to social

networking sites. Presnky (2001), Murdock (2005), and Tapscott (2009) believed the

traditional lecture and listen classroom is losing today’s learners especially the

nonconformist.

Are the advocates for incorporating technology in education correct? Author

3



Marilee Sprenger (2010) reported that current brain research indicates that technology

has changed the way our students’ brains are developing. Does education need to change?

Will incorporating technology into instruction enhance or inhibit student learning? Does

the use of personal technology enhance or inhibit instruction? The question arises, is

technology the way for educators to meet the needs and reach the digital natives of today

in their classrooms? Are digital immigrant teachers capable of teaching digital native

students? As school systems across the national are implementing 21st century

classrooms, funds are being used to support the technological initiative. The call for

increased technology is not being implemented at the same rate and pace throughout the

country. Once technology is made available access to the Internet and the use of Web 2.0

tools is still often limited or completely restricted.

The majority of existing research in the area of instructional technology covers

Web 1.0 tools such as presentation method software as seen by Bartsch and Cobern

(2003), Leonard, Slykhuis, and Wiebe (2007), Ricer, Filak, and Short (2005), Apperson,

Laws, and Scepansky (2004), Sugahara and Boland (2006), Burke and James (2008),

Parette, Hourcade, Boechman, and Blum (2008), and Jennifer Clark’s (2008) research

studies. Today’s Web 2.0 tools engage the user in interactive activities. Pucel and Stertz

(2005), Lu and Gordon (2009), Wiley et al. (2009), Eysink et al. (2009), Ward et al.

(2009), Cilesiz (2009), Crowe (2004), Yu, She and Lee (2010), and Wijekumar,

Hitchcock, Turner, Lei, and Peck (2009) have all performed research studies relating to

the use of Web 2.0 tools. Technological advances seem to outpace the research to

determine their effectiveness. Web 3.0 tools are now on the horizon.

Further research examining the implementation of instructional technology in the

classroom and its effect on student achievement needs to be performed. Educators will

4



benefit from research that determines how instructional technology affects student

achievement and learn ways to implement sound teaching strategies. The research will

provide building administrators with the information to support their faculty and students

to provide professional development to improve instruction. School superintendents and

their staff will have the research to support the expenditure of funds to have the greatest

positive impact on teaching, instruction, and student achievement.

Problem Statement

Presnky (2008), Tapscott (2009) and Sprenger (2010) claimed that technology has

changed the way today’s students learn. The implementation and access to technology

varies greatly among school systems. The problem was that the lack of access to and use

of technology in education is placing our students at a disadvantage and not meeting the

educational needs of today’s digital natives.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the study was to discover if and how integrating technology into

instruction improved student academic achievement. The study took place in a suburban

public school district in the Southeast about 30 miles from a metropolitan city. The

participants were fifth grade math and science students. The majority of research

literature addresses Web 1.0 technology. However, there was limited research focusing

on Web 2.0 interactive technologies. This study strove to contribute to the literature

regarding the integration of Web 2.0 technologies in classroom instruction.

Significance of the Study

The results of the study have the potential to influence the appropriation of state

education agencies and school systems’ funds in the areas of professional development

and technology instruction. In addition to the utilization of funds, the results could

5



influence state standards, curriculum guides, and the inclusion of instructional

technology. Positive results from the study will lead school districts that prohibit access

to Web 2.0 tools to rethink their present technology policies.

If the study finds there was not a statistically significant relationship between

technology and student achievement, educators still need to identify ways to tie

instruction to the constant changing technologies available to today’s learners. It is the

responsibility of educators to prepare students for the world outside of school including

technological use.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question 1

What is the difference between the 2011 Math CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in math?

Research Question 2

What is the difference between the 2011 Science CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in science?

Research Null Hypotheses

H1: There will not be a statistically significant difference between the 2011Math

CRCT scores of the students who received whiteboard and lecture instruction and the

students who received technological instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies.

H2: There will not be a statistically significant difference between the

2011Science CRCT scores of the students who received whiteboard and lecture

instruction and the students who received technological instruction, including Web 2.0

6



technologies.

Identification of Terms

Brain Pop – educational website that offers Flash based movies in most content

areas for students in grades kindergarten through 12 (BrainPop Educators, 2011).

Classroom Response System (CRS) –student handheld interactive response system

providing teachers with immediate feedback regarding student learning.

Digital Native – refers to a person born after 1980. The participants in the study

were digital natives (Prensky, 2001).

Digital Immigrant – refers to a person born prior to 1980. The teacher in the study

was a digital immigrant (Prensky, 2001).

E-learning – “learning that is facilitated and supported via information and

communications technology (ICT)” (TS& Logistics Group. (2011).

Instructional Technology – “the theory and practice of design, development,

utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning” (AECT,

2001).

Millennial – refers to a person born between 1982 to 1995 (Urban Dictionary).

Nonconformist – refers to a person who uses technology creatively, inquisitively,

is a leader, and innovative challenging the rules and limits. The nonconformists are the

leaders in producing and editing online content (Davis, 2008).

PowerPoint – presentation software used for instructional purposes

(TechTerms.com).

Web 1.0 – is the first generation of the World Wide Web characterized by static

websites (PC Digital Magazine, 2011).

Web 2.0 – is the second generation of the World Wide Web. The applications are

7



interactive with the use of blogs and many social networking tools (PC Digital Magazine,

2011).

Whiteboard – a non-electronic variation of the traditional blackboard and can be

written on with colored erasable markers. (The use of the word whiteboard does not refer

to a Smart Board.) (SearchNetworking.com, 2011).

21st Century Classroom Learning Environment –classroom equipped with a DLP

(digital light processing) projector, screen, speakers, voice amplification, Pixie Wall

Controller, and Mobi Interactive Pad providing a world of information available at the

touch of a finger on the Internet and other media (Cleary, 2009).

Research Plan

The study was a non-equivalent control group design intentionally using random

assignment, a pre-test, and post-test. The pre-tests were the 2010 Math CRCT scores and

2010 Science CRCT scores. The post-tests were the 2011 Math CRCT scores and the

2011 Science CRCT scores. The control group received the whiteboard/lecture method of

instruction. The experimental group received technological methods of instruction,

including the use of the 21st century classroom learning environment, online tests and

assessments, online learning games, BrainPOP, PowerPoint presentations, and online

videos. Random allocation determined the control group which received the

whiteboard/lecture method of instruction for the subject math. The control group for math

was the experimental group receiving technological instruction for the subject science.

The random selection determined the control group and experimental group for the other

class. The control group for math instruction was the experimental group for science

instruction, and the control group for science instruction was the experimental group for

math instruction. The purpose of giving each class exposure to both methods of

8



instruction was to not place the students at a disadvantage if one method of instruction

was deemed statistically to impact student achievement.

9



CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Bartsch and Cobern (2003), Leonard et al. (2007), Ricer et al. (2005), Apperson et

al. (2004), Sugahara and Boland (2006), Burke and James (2005), Parette et al. (2008),

Clark (2008), Yu et al. (2010), and Wijekumar et al. (2009) were all researchers who

have sought sound empirical data to determine the effects of technological instruction on

student academic performance. One of the most used methods of instruction was the use

of PowerPoint. Several researchers studied the impact of the use of PowerPoint on

student academic performance. Researchers Slykhuis, Wiebe, and Len (2005) employed

eye tracking technology to determine the most effective use of PowerPoint instruction.

Web-based learning was another area educational researchers Wiley et al. (2009) and

Pucel and Stertz (2005) have deemed important to study. Most of the research deals with

the static Web 1.0 technologies.

As Ward et al. (2009) recognized, the research has not kept pace with the swiftly

changing technological innovations of the interactive Web 2.0 tools. Cramer, Collins,

Snider, and Fawcett’s (2007) researched the virtual lecture hall environment. These

educational researchers have compared the use of traditional methods of instruction to the

technological methods of instruction. Student educational computer use in social and

leisure environments has been studied. Bartsch and Cobern (2003), Hansen and Williams

(2008), D’Angelo and Wooley (2007), and Cramer et al. (2007) sought to identify

students’ preferences and perceptions of educational methods of instruction.

Theoretical Framework

Educational learning theories have their value and can be applied to instructive

10



settings. In a classroom situation it would be difficult to assert that only one learning

method should be implemented. The constructivist learning theory seems to fit well with

instructional technology. Jerome Bruner, constructivist theorist, asserted that students

learn by engaging in the learning and constructing their knowledge through their

experiences. Students’ learning builds from prior knowledge and understanding, while

building new ideas and concepts through engaging in learning activities.

Bruner highlighted three principles of constructivism:

Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and context that make the

student willing and able to learn (readiness), 2. Instruction must be structured so

that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization), and 3. Instruction

should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond

the information given) (Bruner, 2010, p. 1).

The active process of engaging in an activity adds to an individual’s learning.

Technology instruction utilizing Web 2.0 tools fits well with the constructivist learning

theory. The interactive technological tools allow students to move at their own pace. The

students also have the ability to discover and seek more information and knowledge as

soon as they are ready.

Bruner was not the only theorist to purport a constructive learning theory.

Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky have all added to the guiding principles of constructivism.

Dewey’s theory was developed prior to technological instruction, yet he saw that

education and the curriculum would constantly need to be revamped to meet the needs

and interests of the students and society. He wanted students to be engaged in the

learning “using scientific method to intelligently solve problems rather than transmitting

bodies of information” (Gutek, 2005, p. 348). He advocated for collaborative and hands

11



on learning “using inquiry methods; and the need for process-based learning activities”

(Gutek, 2005, p. 348). Dewey was calling for a constructivist learning method of

instruction. Constructivism engaged students in the learning process hoping to make the

attainment of knowledge more meaningful.

Overview

Leonard et al. (2007), Parette et al. (2008), Jennifer Clark (2008), Xiaoqing Guo,

Dobson, and Petrina (2008), and Wiley et al. (2009) recognized the need for sound

empirical research to determine whether the traditional or the technological educational

methods meet the needs of today’s digital learners. Bennett et al. (2008) characterized

today’s generation as “optimistic, team-oriented achievers who are talented with

technology” (p. 776). Are educational author and technology proponent Marc Prensky

and media entrepreneur Robert Murdoch correct? Does education need to change? Will

incorporating technology into instruction enhance or inhibit student learning? Does the

use of personal technology enhance or inhibit instruction? Hansen and Williams (2008),

Cramer et al. (2007), Sugahara and Boland (2006), Lu and Gordon (2009),Yu, She and

Lee (2010), and Wijekumar et al. (2009) performed research in the areas of comparing

traditional classroom instruction with more modern methods such as the use of

PowerPoint, web-based learning, the virtual lecture hall, web-based reading programs,

evaluating computer use in public access areas, and assessing students’ perceptions and

preferences for instructional methods.

Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives

Digital natives appear to be technologically savvy with their use of Twitter,

Facebook, the Internet, cell phones, and a great deal more. Kvavik, Caruso & Morgan

(2004) found that today’s generation of learners own technological devices; however,

12



their use level was at a skill lower than expected. They found only 21% of the digital

generation “engaged in creating their own content and multimedia for the Web,” (Bennett

et al., 2008, p. 778). Jing (2009) conducted his research with preservice teachers who

qualified as digital natives. He concluded that the teachers were savvy with the basic

technological operations and social communication. He determined that their technology

proficiency was limited by both the narrow scope and the lack of depth of their

technology activities.

Researchers Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, and Krause (2008) reinforced

these findings with the conclusions from their study with over 2,000 first year students at

a university in Australia. After the initial social technologies, the individuals’ range of

ability varies greatly. Kvavik et al. (2004), Bennett et al. (2008), and Jing’s (2009)

research indicated that there is not a universal skill level among digital natives.

Technology in the classroom is being researched now, yet it is still considered an

untapped area in educational research.

Xiaoqing Guo et al. (2008) found that no differences exist between digital natives

and digital immigrants. Their research included over 2,000 pre-service teachers in

Canada and the United States from 2001 to 2004. The researchers asserted that “the

digital divide thought to exist between ‘native’ and ‘immigrant’ users may be misleading,

distracting education researchers from more careful consideration of the diversity of ICT

(information and communication technology) users and the nuances of their ICT

competencies” (Xiaoqing Guo et al., 2008, p. 235). The researchers concluded that

Prensky’s assertion about digital natives was exaggerated; nevertheless they acknowledge

that education needs to appeal to the students growing up in the fast paced world of

technology. The authors’ conclusions went against the prevailing thought concerning the

13



importance of using technology in the classroom. The authors recognized the digital

divide might not be that wide; today’s students are social networking savvy but not

necessary technologically savvy.

Kvavik et al. (2004) asserted that the difference between digital natives and

digital immigrants was the same as the differences among the digital native generation.

Cognitive differences needed to be taken into consideration in this debate. Students use

home computers differently than school computers. Students experience frustration with

the limitations of school computer use due to restraints placed on school computers to

protect students from inappropriate material. Contrary to Xiaoqing Guo et al.’s (2008)

assertion, research does need to distinguish and identify the technological levels of digital

natives so that educators can address their individual learning styles and needs. The

problem was meeting the educational needs of today’s digital natives. One powerful

instructional tool that students respond well to was the use of the PowerPoint presentation

method of instruction.

Traditional Classroom Instruction and Modern Instruction

Using traditional and modern educational methods, Hansen and Williams (2008)

performed a study comparing cross-cultural psychology classes. The 101 subjects for the

study were from a predominately white, southern college. The subjects ranged in age

from 18 to 21. Archival data was used for the 56 students in the traditional class. Forty-

eight students were in the modern class. A several year span existed between the

traditional and modern classes. Hansen and Williams (2008) did not provide the actual

number of years between the two studies. Both classes were expected to purchase four to

five books and take three exams throughout the semester. The traditional class used text

books. The modern class used one text book and three paperback novels written by

14



minority authors. The modern class visited each other’s homes, participated in a

restaurant experiment, and engaged in role playing. The students received instruction

through lectures, textbooks and novels, video clips and multicultural experiences (Hansen

& Williams, p. 201). The traditional class received instruction through lectures and

textbook readings.

Subsequent analysis conducted by Hansen and Williams (2008) found significant

differences between the classes on their exams. The modern class performed better on

exam two, and the traditional class performed better on exam three. The requirements for

the modern class were to hand in a PowerPoint/video presentation along with taking

exam three which may account for not performing as well as the traditional class. The

traditional class only had to take the exam. Both classes completed a course evaluation.

The majority of the traditional class subjects claimed that they did not purchase nor read

all the assignments for the course. Therefore there was little class discussion and more

lecture time. The modern class stated that they enjoyed discussing their readings,

conversing with each other, and choosing their video presentations. Although they

expressed a heavier workload, on the course evaluations the students in the modern

class’s experiences were more positive than the traditional classes.

The biggest flaw with Hansen and Williams’ (2008) research study was the time

span between the classes being compared. The results would have been more accurate if

there were two classes participating in the study at the same time with one class receiving

the traditional method of instruction and the other class receiving the modern methods of

instruction. The authors attributed the comments on the evaluations of the modern class

concerning the workload to be a result of the stress and anxiety placed on them because

they had to hand in a video presentation as well as prepare for the exam. Another

15



influence on the study results could have been the timing of the evaluations. Had the

evaluations taken place at a different point in the semester the students may not have felt

as stressed by the workload and the results may have been different.

The results of the study did not meet the expectations of the researchers. The

modern class was perceived as more engaged and involved in learning throughout the

course, yet the assessments did not indicate that they learned more than the traditional

class. The study leaves many unanswered questions that could be addressed by further

research. One area of further research could be to understand why the modern class was

more engaged in the learning and discover what aspects of the class made learning

appealing.

Pucel and Stertz (2005) also performed a research study comparing web-based

instruction to traditional classroom instruction. Their study looked at student satisfaction

and academic achievement for in-service teacher education courses for career and

technical education teachers. The researchers noted that in the career and technical

education field many educators are first trained in their career fields and once they

become teachers they receive teacher education training. Many people in the field of

career and technical education lack the traditional teacher education instruction before

becoming educators. The University of Minnesota offered in-service instruction to

teachers in career and technical education courses on the web and in the traditional

classroom environment. The teachers taught at the high school level and at technical and

career colleges. The purpose of the study was to identify a model for web-based

instruction courses and to determine if the web instruction demonstrated similar results to

traditional course instruction (Pucel & Stertz, 2005).

The two courses compared in the study were the History and Philosophy of

16



Career and Technical Education and Instructional Methods for Business and Industry

(Pucel & Stertz, 2005). The two experienced Ph.D. instructors, who taught the courses in

the study, expressed an interested in web-based learning and both had taught the courses

in a traditional classroom environment. They worked together to design the online

courses. The traditional and web-based courses had the same assignments, objectives, and

grading criteria. The researchers recruited two doctoral candidates to provide support for

the course development. One candidate’s expertise was in the course content, and the

other candidate’s proficiency was in developing web-based instruction.

The traditional courses took place in the summer and fall. Offered in the spring

and following summer session were the two web-based courses. Students did not engage

in the traditional classroom instruction and web-based instruction at the same time. For

all the courses student satisfaction surveys and grades were gathered at the end of the

semester. Pucel and Stertz (2005) did note that not all students answered the student

satisfaction questionnaires.

The results of the Purcel and Stertz’(2005) study found that students in the

History and Philosophy of Career and Technical Education expressed that they basically

spent the same amount of time outside of class in both the traditional and web-based

courses. Eighty-two percent of the students in the web-based Instructional Methods for

Business and Industry course articulated that they spent more time outside of class than

the students in the traditional class. The satisfaction survey indicated that the students felt

both courses were equal in rigor and challenge.

The Instructional Methods for Business and Industry course showed the widest

disparity of student satisfaction. Ninety-two percent of the students who received

traditional instruction were satisfied with the course. However, only 52 percent of the

17



students in the web-based course indicated their satisfaction (Pucel & Stertz 2005). These

students shared that they would have preferred taking the methods course in the

traditional classroom environment. The data indicated that there was no statistical

significant difference in the student evaluations between the two methods of instruction.

There was only a slight preference indicated for the traditional instructional method

(Pucel & Stertz). Interestingly, the students in the web-based Instructional Methods for

Business and Industry course expressed that they learned more than the traditional

instruction students, yet more than one half of the students would have preferred the

traditional method of instruction.

When Purcel and Stertz (2005) looked at student academic achievement, the

results indicated a statistically significant difference in two areas for the web-based

students scoring less than the traditional method students in the History and Philosophy

of Career and Technical Education course. For the Instructional Methods for Business

and Industry course the web-based students performed better in three of the four criteria

evaluated than the students receiving traditional instruction. The students also performed

significantly better for the final exam. The authors noted that on the presentation project

portion of the course, the students receiving traditional instruction outperformed the web-

based instruction students.

Purcel and Stertz (2005) made a good effort to make the learning environments as

equal as possible. The study could have been improved if the same instructor taught both

the traditional instruction and web-based course. Instructor teaching style could have

influenced the students’ preferences and performance in the courses. The researchers

were thorough in their attempt to provide as equal as possible learning environments for

their study. After the courses were developed by the instructors, the curriculum

18



coordinator also looked at the course material. The study could have been enhanced if the

course offerings had taken place at the same time. The researchers made the assumption

that the students from different semesters were equal. Students expressing a preference

for traditional instruction in the philosophy course may have been the nature of the class

even though the web-based students outperformed the traditional instruction class in all

areas expect for one. Overall, the researchers did a fine job of trying to equalize the

influencing factors of their study.

PowerPoint Instruction

Bartsch and Cobern (2003) conducted two studies which compared the use of

overhead transparencies, basic PowerPoint and enhanced PowerPoint and their effect on

learning. A clear conclusion was never reached in the study. The subjects stated that they

preferred the PowerPoint presentations over the use of overhead transparencies. The

participants also articulated that they believed they learned more when PowerPoint was

incorporated into the instructional lesson. The researchers discovered unrelated

presentation slides lead to decreased comprehension.

In their second study, Bartsch and Cobern (2003) focused on visual cues in the

PowerPoint presentations and their effect on learning. The results determined that

unrelated graphics negatively affect learning. The researchers failed to distinguish

between graphics that were relevant to the topic and slides that only displayed relevant

text. The low number of participants in the study limited its applicability. The authors

asserted the study could be replicated with a larger group of participants. While no clear

consensus was found between the three instructional methods, the students expressed a

preference for the use of PowerPoint in instruction.

Ricer et al. (2005) studied the effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations

19



compared to overhead transparencies using medical school students as the subjects. The

authors agree that PowerPoint is the expected presentation method to use for instruction.

Yet the researchers claimed a lack of empirical evidence supporting this presentation

method and its effectiveness. They sought to discover the answer to the following

questions: “1. Subjective evaluation of the presentation? 2. Short-term retention of

material? 3. Long-term retention of material?” (Ricer et al., 2005, p.108). The study took

place over a one-year period with 12 to 14 participants per month for a total of 150

participants. The instructional media differed, but the content was identical each month.

The media instruction included video clips, sound, animation, and graphics. The

overhead transparencies were printed versions of the PowerPoint slides in an effort to

maintain strict adherence to the content. The participants only had access to presentation

notes during class time. The subjects completed a 13 question posttest at the end of each

class “to evaluate knowledge of the material presented” (Ricer et al., 2005, p. 108).

Subjects also completed a Likert type questionnaire evaluating subjectively the value of

the presentation. One year later the students were asked to complete an identical posttest.

The second posttest response was at 80% with 120 of subjects participating.

The results of the study did not find a significant difference between the

PowerPoint presentation method and overhead transparency method of instruction. On

the immediate posttest, the overhead transparency groups’ average score was 11.01

questions answered correctly as to 10.91 answered correctly for the PowerPoint group.

Subsequent analysis of the identical test one year later revealed 8.21 questions answered

correctly for the PowerPoint group and 7.87 answered correctly for the transparency

group. The results indicated that the method of presentation does not affect learning.

The quality and teaching appeal of the instructor may have been one reason that

20



the students did not express a difference when evaluating the class subjectively. Ricer et

al. (2005) made a concerted effort to keep all variables equal throughout the comparison

study. They could improve upon the study by further distinguishing between the types of

slides incorporating graphics and sound. The research study could include the use of

graphics and sounds that related to the topic and animations that did not relate to the

topic. The study could also be repeated using two or more professors. The medical

students in the study did not express a preference for the use of the PowerPoint method of

instruction over the overhead transparency method of instruction. However, if one

recognized and accepted the concept of digital natives, the use of the PowerPoint method

of instruction will most likely have more appeal for students. The study determined that

specific use of one type of presentation method does not affect learning, yet a further

study could be to look at explicit details in the PowerPoint method of instruction to

determine its effect on learning and retention.

Apperson et al. (2004) supported the use of the PowerPoint presentation method

for instruction even though their research did not determine that its use improves

students’ academic achievement. They performed their research study at a small, state

university in the Atlantic region of the country. The subjects were from five courses in

four different disciplines. Five professors participated in the study. Each professor taught

using the chalk and lecture method of instruction for the fall semester, and in the spring

semester the professors used the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction. The

study consisted of 95 participants in the PowerPoint classes, and 104 participants in the

chalk and lecture classes. The researchers assessed the participants’ perceptions and

attitudes toward the use of the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction. They also

assessed whether the use of the PowerPoint presentation method improved students’

21



grades. The subjects completed the university’s standard end-of-course professor

evaluation questionnaire. In addition, they completed a Likert type assessment on the

impact of graphics in the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction, their attitudes

and perceptions of the instruction method, instructor preparation, interest in the course,

and their overall academic experience.

The results of Apperson et al.’s (2004) research overwhelmingly supported the

use of the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction. Subjects articulated that the

class was more organized making it easier to maintain focus; the instructor was

interesting, class discussion was engaging, and participants believed their grasp of the

material was enhanced. Subjects expressed an interest in taking the professor for another

class when the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction was used. Subjects’ grades

did not improve using one method of instruction over the other. The researchers

determined that using the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction engages

students and is worthwhile even though grades were not affected.

Apperson et al. (2004) attempted to get a diversified group of participants for the

study. One way the study could have been improved if the instructors taught one section

using each method during the fall and spring semesters. The research could also be

replicated with more participants. Another area for research could be to identify what

aspects of the PowerPoint presentation method appeal and engage the students.

Sugahara and Boland (2006) stated there was conflicting research concerning the

use of the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction and its affect on learning. The

authors noted the prevailing belief in the early 1990s was that technology and PowerPoint

did enhance learning. From their literature review the authors recognized that PowerPoint

may not improve student grades, yet they have found that students prefer this method of

22



instruction and may engage students in the learning process. Their study started with 189

undergraduate participants in an introductory accounting class in a midsize Japanese

university. The researchers asserted that the students’ preference for the use of

PowerPoint would not significantly affect their academic performance (Sugahara &

Boland, 2006).

In Sugahara and Boland’s (2006) study, the students were given a questionnaire to

answer in week 14 of the semester. Of the original 189 participants, 132 participants were

used for the study due to incomplete questionnaires. The participants were required to put

their name and ID number on the questionnaire. A different professor administered the

questionnaire during allotted class time. The questionnaire assessed the participants’

perceptions using a four and five point Likert type scale. Instruction throughout the

semester was administered using the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction. The

students were provided a copy of the PowerPoint lecture notes prior to class. The results

found that participants who expressed a preference for the PowerPoint presentation

method of instruction earned lower final exam scores. Contrastingly, the students who did

not prefer the use of PowerPoint did not score significantly better on their final exams.

Students who take notes overwhelmingly preferred the PowerPoint presentation method

of instruction and took advantage of the opportunity to download their lecture notes.

Sugahara and Boland (2006) asserted that unmotivated students may not learn as

well when PowerPoint is used because the lecture notes were made available to them

requiring minimal effort on their part. They also commented that when using PowerPoint

students become unengaged and passive in class. The authors acknowledged that their

results should not mean the elimination of the PowerPoint presentation method of

instruction. They also acknowledged that their specific type of study was one of the first

23



performed in Japan, and the research study needs to be replicated in other environments.

The results do tie to Burke and James’ (2008) research that found the PowerPoint

presentation method of instruction was not conducive to accounting courses. One major

drawback of Sugahara and Boland’s (2006) research study was the requiring of the

participants to submit their name and ID number on the questionnaire jeopardizing the

validity of the survey. Students may have been influenced to respond to the questionnaire

in a manner they thought their professor expected of them.

Sugahara and Boland (2006) did not critique the PowerPoint slides in their study.

Clark (2008) and Bartsch and Cobern’s (2003) research determined that slides relevant to

the topic at hand are more effective. Interestingly, the researchers felt that using

PowerPoint leads to the students being passive in the class. Research has found that the

correct use of PowerPoint can motivate and actively engage the learner. However, this

may not be necessarily true in accounting classes. In this researcher’s opinion, it would

be interesting to replicate this study in other countries with similar level of students. Does

the educational environment of students in Japan align with students from other

countries? Are the expectations of students in Japan similar to the expectations of

students from other countries?

PowerPoint has been found to be very effective for developing literacy skills for

young children especially at-risk and special needs individuals. Parette et al. (2008)

shared ways that PowerPoint aids instruction in particular “in the areas of phonological

awareness, alphabetic principles, comprehension, concepts about print, and vocabulary

development” (p. 233). PowerPoint allowed students to connect letters and words and

their respective sounds. Pictures on a slide correlating to sounds and letters were another

way students learn using PowerPoint. Young readers gained an understanding of the

24



relationship between printed words and language. There were various ways PowerPoint

can be used interactively to teach and engage children.

Jennifer Clark (2008) asserted that student interest and engagement in classroom

lectures can be achieved through the use of PowerPoint. Clark’s research included 46

second and third-year history students whose professors employed various styles and

methods of PowerPoint instruction in their classes. Using a qualitative questionnaire she

assessed the students’ input on the positive and negative elements of the PowerPoint

presentation method of instruction in lecture classes. Clark did not define learning for the

students, yet the respondents articulated that learning increased due to the use of

PowerPoint in their classes. They expressed this by stating the information was easier to

understand, more organized, the printed handout was reinforced by the visual

presentation on the projection screen, and felt they were able to listen more intently.

The students believed that retention increased when printed handouts

accompanied the PowerPoint presentation. Students preferred visual and audio stimuli in

the presentations. The majority of the students preferred the slides that included

movement too. Clark noted that the quality of the presentation and slides was determined

by the professors and their creativity. She concluded that while the students like the

visuals, colors, graphics, sounds, and movement they expect the slides to be relevant to

the content and learning. Slides for the sake of ascetics had no educational value.

Clark (2008) believed it was most effective and “stimulation can be increased if

PowerPoint is used to bridge the direct and constructivist teaching models” (p.39). Clark

stressed the importance of students being provided with the PowerPoint notes before the

class. The printed notes allow students to be more engaged in the lecture; in addition they

can write their personal notes and comments on the handout, and are free to participate in

25



class discussion. Following these suggestions led to higher order thinking for the students

with the instructor encouraging students to express and conceptualize not copy.

Clark (2008) emphasized that the students recognize that the professor and the

content was the most important element in the course. The students’ felt more engaged

and interested when quality instructional PowerPoint was utilized. Clark shared great

ideas to incorporate PowerPoint into instruction positively. Her research included only a

small number of students. She was not looking for a correlation between PowerPoint and

improved grades. She seemed to have accepted the current research that asserts that

PowerPoint does not appear to affect grades. She wanted to understand what aspects of

PowerPoint the students enjoy and relate to feeling that learning is enhanced. She

gathered their qualitative responses and offers tips and suggestions. This research could

be replicated with a larger population of participants.

Presentation software is readily available in the classroom, the boardroom, and

throughout business and industry. Recognizing the wide use of PowerPoint, Deal (2005)

claimed that audiences retain more information when presentation software includes the

use of visual materials. He referenced two outdated studies to support his claim. The first

was a combined study with 3M and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School in

1981 titled “A Study of the Effects of the Use of Overhead Transparencies on Business

Meetings”, and the second study was with 3M and the University of Minnesota in 1986

titled “Persuasion and the Role of Visual Presentation Support” The author “concluded

that visual aids improve communication, effectiveness, improve the audience’s

perceptions of the presenter, and improve speakers’ confidence” (Deal, p. 12). These two

studies did not look at the effect of the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction on

learning as has been the focus of the majority of research studies performed in this area.

26



Subsequent early PowerPoint research determined that the audience does perceive

that the use of PowerPoint enhances learning; subjects positively viewed the instructor or

presenter, and subjects did appreciate the use of relevant visual aids in the presentation.

Deal (2005) emphasized what was good about PowerPoint as well as notes what can

make a presentation ineffective and a “visual ‘eyesore’” (p. 13). Deal explained that

conceptual, factual, and procedural information can be displayed in the presentation.

Teachers and students now have the ability to direct, produce, and edit their pictures and

videos. Deal found to add creativity to the presentation use: “custom animation, hidden

slides accessible through hyperlinks or action buttons, add narration, include video clips,

embed Macromedia Flash movies, and create interactive games” (2005, p. 13). Deal

shared ways to make the PowerPoint method of instruction interesting and appealing;

however, he stresses that the goal is to lead students to become “technologically literate”

(Deal, 2005, p. 16).

The use of the word literate was important as Kvavik et al. (2004), Bennett et al.

(2008), Kennedy et al. (2008), and Xiaoqing Guo et al. (2008) have noted the

technological level and ability of today’s digital native varies greatly. These researchers

all accentuated the importance of improving the technological level and expertise of our

students to be able to employ knowledge creatively and critically.

PowerPoint Instruction and Gender

PowerPoint appeals to genders differently. Leonard et al. (2007) focused on the

appeal of PowerPoint as it pertains to gender. They did not look at its effectiveness and

impact on learning. Leonard et al. performed a research study looking at gender

preferences and PowerPoint presentations for pre-service science teachers.

Overwhelmingly, the female participants preferred the PowerPoint presentation method

27



of instruction even when the graphics were not related to the topic. The authors

recognized that gender differences exist concerning color and visual stimulation. For

example, males were sensitive to visual stimuli where women were more concerned with

color and color compatibility. The authors asserted the need for educators to understand

“how different populations of students respond to varying components of PowerPoint

was a vital piece of the educational puzzle that researchers of instructional technology

need to continue to explore” (Leonard et al., p.303). From this study more research could

be performed to ascertain what aspects of PowerPoint appeal to both genders enabling

professors to design more effective presentations.

Web-based Learning and PowerPoint

Koeber (2005) researched web-based learning and the use of the PowerPoint

presentation method of instruction in sociology classes. His premise was that students

would respond positively to the professor’s use of technology and the students would

become engaged in learning and favorably view the course. The researcher taught an

introductory sociology class in the fall semester using PowerPoint multimedia

presentations and Blackboard© at a mid-size state university in the Midwest. He taught

two sections of the class using a lecture format. He used overhead transparency slides

that were copied from the PowerPoint slides. The students took five, 40 multiple choice

question exams throughout the semester. Students were provided with textbook

information that could be accessed on the Internet and take optional quizzes.

In the spring semester, the professor taught two sections of the same course with

all elements being the same except for the class met in a multimedia classroom, the

transparency slides were replaced by PowerPoint slides keeping with the basic text of the

transparencies used in the fall semester, and he used Blackboard© to construct a website

28



for the students. Koeber (2005) offered extra credit to students who registered on

Blackboard©; he also only posted test grades on the site. Only two students out of 91 did

not access Blackboard© throughout the semester. At the end of the course all students

were asked to answer the university’s Likert type scale questionnaire assessing the course

and instructor.

Koeber (2005) found that there was not a significant statistical difference in

students’ grades from either semester. The spring semester showed a significant statistical

difference in the overall quality of the course, a higher workload, and students felt the

course was easier compared to the feedback from the fall semester students. The results

showed that the use of technology and PowerPoint does not affect student grades.

However, the use of technology and PowerPoint was viewed favorably by students and

increases students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. The results aligned with

Sugahara and Boland’s (2006) findings.

Koeber replicated his experiment from the fall to spring semester. He found that

grades are not affected by the use of technology in classroom instruction when using

PowerPoint and Blackboard©. He did find, as other researchers have, that students’

perception of learning and enjoyment for the class increases with the use of technology. I

think Koeber could improve upon his research by discovering what aspects of

Blackboard© and PowerPoint engage and interest students. He could focus his research

on making the class more students centered than teacher centered.

Ricer et al. (2005), Bartsch and Cobern (2003), and Sugahara and Boland (2006)

are advocates and educational researchers who believe that the use of the PowerPoint

method of instruction does enhance learning and engage students. These supporters

focused on the methods and aspects of the design of the PowerPoint presentation to

29



augment learning and interest the students in the learning process. Focus on the

capabilities of the presentation software to utilize it to meet educational goals of the

professor for the specific course.

Web-Based Reading Instruction

Two university professors studied whether a technology web-based summer

reading program would positively impact students’ reading behaviors. They also sought

to ascertain what aspects of the program were of value to be replicated in future

programs. Lu and Gordon (2009) performed their study at a high school in New England.

In the summer reading program 288 students from three ability groups participated along

with 11 English teachers and the school librarian. The school in the study homogeneously

grouped their students. The three groups represented in the study were high achieving,

average achieving, and low achieving students.

Lu and Gordon (2009) surveyed the student participants and interviewed the

teacher participants. The researchers used close ended questions to identify age, gender,

grade level of the participants. The other questions from the survey were open ended in

an attempt to have the participants answer honestly and candidly about their reading

attitudes and behaviors. The researchers had a 52% rate of return on the questionnaires.

Originally 550 surveys were dispersed with 288 respondents replying.

Lu and Gordon (2009) did not identify access to computers and the Internet as a

factor influencing the outcomes of the study. Students who reported not having computer

access in their homes utilized public resources and still participated in the summer

reading program. The researchers found that the reading level of the participants was the

most significant factor influencing reading behavior. Computer and Internet access was

considered a non-issue concerning reading behavior.

30



Lu and Gordon (2009) emphasized an important element of the summer reading

program is the variety of selections that were not grade specific. The lists were posted

online. The lists were also available at the school library and bookstores in the

community. Computers and Internet access was available at the public library in town for

the students without the necessary resources in their homes. While the participants

claimed to use the Internet to peruse the reading lists only nine percent of the students

used the “Get Books” feature online. The “Get Books” feature allows individuals to

purchase and download the book immediately to their computer or electronic book. The

participants preferred purchasing or borrowing the books they selected to read. The

participants did not favor using the online catalogue as well. Only 18 participants used

online sources to purchase their reading material.

Another significant element of the program that the researchers shared was the

web-based project choices including an assortment of language, art, and computer based

options (Lu & Gordon, 2009). The participants’ reaction to the projects did not include a

preference for or against the web-based choices. The students expressed positive

feedback concerning the web-based summer reading program. The ability to browse and

select from a variety of choices was deemed favorable by the participants.

In the teacher interviews, Lu and Gordon (2009) found a split among participants

as to the value of offering the summer reading program web-based. The teachers felt that

the web-based choices led to confusion for the participants. They believed that the

participants’ reading behaviors were not influenced by the web-based choices. A few

teachers articulated that the web-based reading program could positively impact the

unmotivated reader. They also saw the value in the web-based program encouraging

critical and independent thinking skills.

31



Lu and Gordon (2009) did not indicate how the students were selected to

participate in the summer reading program. They did identify that three reading levels

participated. Was the program voluntary? Was the programmed offered for students

needing remediation? Knowing why the participants were in the summer reading

program would lead to a greater understanding of the results of the study. The

participants did not seem to embrace the online aspects of the summer reading program.

It would be interesting to learn why the participants who are digital natives did not use

the interactive technological features of the program more. The participants did not use

the online capability to download the books or participate in the blogging projects. These

were all features that align with what critics like Prensky (2008), Murdock (2005), and

Tapscott (2009) claimed that today’s digital natives’ desire, yet the participants in this

study did not utilize their technological options. The results tied to what Kvavik et al.

(2004), Kennedy et al. (2008), and Bennett et al. (2008) highlight about the differences

among our digital natives.

Eye-Tacking Technology

Slykhuis et al. (2005) researched the visual aspects of a presentation slide that

increase understanding and retention for the learner. Fifteen pre-service teachers in an

introductory science education course participated in the study. The research questions

for the study were: Is there a difference in how students attend to photographs either with

or without audio narration? Do students rarely attend to the photograph regardless of the

level of its classification (Slykhuis et al., 2005, p. 512)? The researchers chose to use

Pozzer and Roth’s (2003, as cited in Slykhuis et al., 2005) four classifications of

photographs: decorative, illustrative, explanatory and complementary. Decorative

photographs provided aesthetics only, illustrative photographs did not add new or

32



additional information, and explanatory photographs provided a caption explaining the

photograph. Complementary photographs were the most beneficial for the student. These

photographs offered new or additional information that was not present in the text.

Slykhuis et al. (2005) used eye-tracking technology to evaluate the percentage of

the time each subject spent looking at the photograph in relation to the amount of time

spent viewing the entire slide. The results indicated that the subjects spent significantly

more time viewing the complementary photographs. The results also showed the

subjects’ initial and subsequent focus was on the complementary slide whereas on a

decorative slide the focus was for a shorter time span and not until other aspects of the

slide have been viewed. The participants looked at all the slides; however the

complementary slides received more focus and attention. When the PowerPoint

presentation was accompanied with an audio narration the subjects spent more time

viewing those slides than slides without audio enhancement. When audio narration was

used there was little distinction between the four types of photographs and subject

attention to the slide.

While it seemed that the results of Slykhuis et al.’s (2005) research were what

would be expected, educators often do not construct PowerPoint presentations in the most

effective manner for the learner. The results of the research study provided valuable

information for the educators who use PowerPoint. Leonard et al. (2007) found that

females prefer slides with color and graphics even when they do not relate to the topic or

subject matter. However, armed with this information educators can still appeal to their

female learners by using color and graphics that are complementary in nature. The

research study was performed on only 15 participants that were pre-service science

education teachers. The study should be duplicated with more participants in varied

33



fields. The results of Slykhuis et al.’s (2005) research study provided a sound basis for

application and use by educators and all users of PowerPoint presentation applications.

The Web and Student Learning

Wiley et al. (2009) sought to evaluate college students’ ability to disseminate

science information posted on the Internet. The researchers performed two experiments to

gain an understanding of how students process information when using the web. They

assessed students’ methods of search, selection, evaluation, comparison, and integration

of specific scientific content (Wiley et al., 2009).

Wiley et al.’s (2009) research study was conducted at two state universities that

shared similar student demographics and academic entrance requirements. The

participants from the study were pulled from students enrolled in introductory

psychology courses. The possible participants took a pretest on volcanic eruptions. There

were 110 participants in the study selected from a group of 1,650 possible students. The

participants were in their freshman or sophomore year of college and their average age

was 19. The participants were divided into four different methodology conditions all

involving the Internet. The four conditions were: employing the Dual-Purkinje eye

tracker; a think aloud task; a head-mounted eye tracker and think aloud task; and the

absence of both eye tracking technology and a think aloud task. Ninety other participants

in the study comprised the non-reading comparison group that would not participate in

the inquiry activity (Wiley et al., 2009).

Wiley et al. (2009) directed the participants to explain the eruption of Mt. St.

Helens. The participants were provided with seven Internet sources related to volcanic

eruptions. The researchers replicated the appearance of a “typical” Google search. The

search results were ordered and presented in two different ways. Half the participants

34



were given the first order of results, and the other half of the participants received the

second ordering of search results. All participants received exposure to the same seven

results just the ordering was different. Some of the search sites provided inaccurate or

incomplete information. The participants could not gather all the necessary information to

complete the assignment through one Internet site. As part of the assessment procedures

the participants were asked to rank the seven Internet sites and explain their selection

evaluating the reliability of the sources.

Wiley et al. (2009) assessed the students’ knowledge after researching the topic

through an essay and test. Half of the students were directed to write an argumentative

essay and the other half wrote a descriptive essay. The authors devised a four part

evaluation rubric. The first level of the rubric was labeled Type O. Earning a Type O

meant the participant’s essay was mostly inaccurate information without covering the

topic. Type 1 demonstrated an understanding of only one aspect of the assignment. Type

2 and 3 confirmed the participants understanding of the concepts with Type 3 showing

the highest mastery level. The test assessment was a 30 question recognition test. To

determine if the participants were able to apply their new knowledge, the researchers

edited one participant’s essay and asked the rest of the participants to evaluate the essay

for accuracy using the evaluation rubric. The edited essay contained inaccurate

information. The non-reading group did not participate in the Internet inquiry aspect of

the study. The non-reading group also wrote an essay on Mt. St. Helens.

Wiley et al. (2009) then compared the results of the reading group with the non-

reading group. The results demonstrated that the Internet inquiry group performed better

than the non-reading group. The inquiry group scored higher on the Type 1 and 2

evaluation tool than the non-reading group. The results indicated that more of the

35



participants who were expected to write the argumentative essay scored in the Type 3

range. These participants spent more time rereading the reliable Internet sources. While

the inquiry group scored higher than the non-reading group the results still demonstrated

that the participants did not gain a thorough knowledge and understanding of the

assignment. The researchers concluded that for experiment one the participants did not

know how to disseminate accurate and reliable information from inaccurate and

unreliable information on the Internet.

Taking the information learned in experiment one, Wiley et al. (2009) performed

a second experiment at the same two institutions with 56 participants from the original

student pool. For this part of the study, half of the participants first received instruction

on evaluating reliable and accurate Internet sites. Prior to experiment two, 79% of the

participants indicated that they had never received instruction for evaluating Internet

sites. The researchers identified four areas that they felt students need to understand when

researching on the Internet. The four areas are: source, evidence, explanation, and

knowledge (SEEK) (Wiley et al., 2009). Half of the participants received SEEK

instruction and the other half did not.

Following the format of experiment one, the experiment two participants were

asked to evaluate the Atkins low carbohydrate diet to determine its health benefits or

risks (Wiley et al., 2009). Again Internet sites were provided offering information on the

topic. The participants were asked to rank the Internet sites. All participants were able to

identify the most reliable and credible web site of the group of Internet sites. The findings

did indicate that the participants who received the SEEK instruction far surpassed their

counterparts in the identifying the most reliable and accurate sources.

Wiley et al. (2009) then performed experiment one with both groups of

36



participants from experiment two. All procedures from experiment one were followed for

the second group of participants. One goal of the researchers was to determine if the

SEEK instruction the participants received for the Atkins low carbohydrate diet task

would transfer to the Mt. St. Helens task. For the essay portion of the Mt. St. Helens

experiment the students’ essays for those who did not receive the SEEK instruction

scored Type 1 on the evaluation rubric. The SEEK groups’ essays were mostly assigned a

Type 3. The navigation patterns of the SEEK groups was significantly different from the

navigation patterns of the non-SEEK instruction group. The results determined that the

SEEK instruction was effective for improving comprehension when searching the

Internet (Wiley et al., 2009). The results also indicated that the SEEK instruction did

transfer to other Internet searching tasks.

With the call to integrate technology in instruction it is important for students to

learn how to use the Internet and technology effectively. As Kvavik et al. (2004),

Kennedy et al. (2008), and Bennett et al. (2008) have all noted, being a savvy, social

networker, digital native does not necessarily correlate to knowing how to use technology

for learning and comprehension. The results found that the SEEK instruction improved

the participants’ navigation patterns, ability to decipher between credible and inaccurate

information, and that the SEEK skills transferred to other tasks.

Wiley et al. (2009) controlled the information provided on the Internet. They

replicated a typical Google search for all participants while providing the same seven

Internet sites. The only difference being the ordering of the sites on the results page. This

aspect of the study allowed for a good comparison between the reading and instruction

group with the non-reading and non-instruction group. One of the most important results

of this research study notes that students need instruction to use technology effectively

37



and efficiently. Wiley et al.’s (2009) research highlights that educators cannot assume

that because their students have grown up using technology that they know the best way

to incorporate technology in an educational context. The results of Wiley et al.’s (2009)

study indicated that today’s students need guidance and instruction in the educational use

of technology.

Researchers Eysink et al. (2009) used multimedia learning environments to

determine which learning model was the most effective for student learning and

performance. The researchers’ studied four active learning instructional methods.

Following the constructivist learning method, Eysink et al. (2009) asserted that the most

meaningful learning takes place when the students become active stakeholders in the

learning process. The four learning approaches for the study were: hypermedia learning,

observational learning, self-explanation-based learning, and inquiry learning. With

hypermedia learning the student told how something works, for observational learning

the student showed how something works, for self-explanation-based learning the student

explained how something works, and for inquiry learning the student investigated how

something works (Eysink et al., 2009, p. 1108). All the instructional methods were taught

in computer based learning environments. The researchers chose the computer based

learning environment to avoid the influence of teacher effect if individual instructors

taught the concepts. Mathematics was the content area and probability theory was the

concept taught.

Eysink et al.’s (2009) non-equivalent control group design consisted of four

studies in two countries. Two studies were performed in Germany in the German

language, and the other two studies were performed in the Netherlands in Dutch. Of the

624 participants in the study, 318 were male, 303 were female, and three participants did

38



not state their gender. The participants were in grades 10 and 11. In Germany and the

Netherlands grades 10 and 11 are the highest secondary grade levels. The research

procedures were identical for all four studies. There were 196 participants for the

hypermedia learning method, 138 participants for the observational learning method, 169

participants for the self-explanation-based learning method, and 121 participants for the

inquiry learning method (Eysink et al., 2009, p. 1118). Following the curriculum the

participants engaged in specifically designed random probability exercises. The

participants answered a characteristics questionnaire, took a pretest, and posttest. All

posttest items mirrored similar questions from the pretest. The concepts covered on the

tests were conceptual, procedural, intuitive, and situational.

In Eysink et al.’s (2009) study the participants received an introduction to

probability theory in four different computer based learning environments using each

instructional method. The data was collected, combined, and analyzed from all four

studies. The researchers analyzed the effectiveness of the instructional methods which

encompassed academic performance and cognitive effort. They also analyzed efficiency

of learning which looked at how long it took for the participants to reach specific levels

of understanding. The researchers employed pair wise comparisons using the Bonferroni

procedure. The results showed that in almost all categories the self-explanation based

learning method was significantly higher than the other three learning methods.

An exception occurred in the conceptual knowledge and situational knowledge

categories where there was not a significant difference between the self-explanation

based learning method and the inquiry learning method. However, the self-based

explanation based learning method was significantly higher than the other two methods in

the same category. An interesting result of the study identified that the participants who

39



engaged in the self-explanation based learning method needed more time to complete the

tasks than the participants in the other three learning methods. Inquiry learning was the

found to be the next most effective instructional method. Hypermedia learning and

observational learning methods received the lowest scores.

The results of the study found that students who actively participate in their

learning process gain the most benefits. When given the time necessary to engage in self-

explanation based learning the student will attain the highest levels of conceptual

knowledge, intuitive knowledge, procedural knowledge, and situational knowledge

(Eysink et al., 2009, p. 1142). Self-explanation based learning has many positive

attributes, yet with the advent of No Child Left Behind and all the other constraints on

educators is it the instructional method to employ? In this researcher’s opinion, the

method Eysink et al. (2009) used was inefficient and time consuming which did not help

with the testing and limitations placed on education in America today. The most practical

solution when designing instructional methods would be to take the best aspects of each

instructional method.

Two noticeable questions arise from the research study. Were the high school

students in the study experienced enough to be self-learners? Is probability theory a

concept that students can grasp on their own without the assistance and guidance of a

teacher? The concept of the study was good, yet mathematics is a content area that many

students struggle to learn. A different content area may have served better for this

research study. Even though the participants in the study were in their last two years of

high school have they developed the necessary skills to be independent learners? Another

drawback of the research study was the comparison of the different instructional

methods. Eysink et al. (2009) explained that even when the same assessment method was

40



employed there were many disadvantages to comparing new instructional methods to

traditional methods (p. 1109).

On a positive note, this researcher feels that the study did show that self-

explanation based learning can be tied to technological instruction. The study’s results

can aid instructional designers when developing curriculum to include technological

instruction. Another concern was does the knowledge learned in this research study

transfer to students in the United States. Are the educational systems from Germany and

the Netherlands similar to the educational system in America? The researchers did not

address the comparison between the three countries in their study. The study was a good

start for future research to address instructional methods using technological instruction.

Wijekumar et al. (2009) with the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Mid-

Atlantic sought to identify an instructional method that increases elementary students’

math achievement. The researchers determined that fourth grade is a pivotal year for

math instruction. Their research indicated that other countries begin to surpass American

students in math at this point. In 2005, in the Mid-Atlantic region, 693 schools were using

the Odyssey Math software program; although little research existed to support its

significance for improving math achievement. Developed by CompassLearning, Odyssey

Math is a computer based math curriculum for K-12 students. The web-based program

includes learning activities, math tools, and assessments (Wijekumar et al., p. 2). The

Odyssey Math technological program can be used as the sole math curriculum or a

supplement to the school’s existing math curriculum. The researchers chose to use the

Odyssey Math program as a supplement to the existing math curriculum.

The schools in the Mid-Atlantic Region were offered free use of the Odyssey

Math software program for participation in the research study. Thirty-two elementary

41



schools from the Mid-Atlantic Region volunteered to participate in the study. The final

participating schools were: 23 from Pennsylvania, eight from New Jersey and one from

Delaware. The study included 122 teachers and 2,637 students (Wijekumar et al., 2009,

p. ix). Random assignment determined the control and experimental groups for each

school participating in the study. Due to the random assignment, the researchers

determined that there was not a statistically significant difference in the “socioeconomic

status, percentage of English language learner students, racial/ethnic minority students,

gender, and teacher participation in professional development of the study’s participants

and teachers” (Wijekumar et al., 2009, p. ix).

The researchers sought to discover if the experimental group, the students who

received the Odyssey Math technological instruction, would have higher math

achievement scores than the control group on the TerraNova CTBS Basic Battery

assessments. They also investigated the effect of the Odyssey Math program on the

achievement of students by gender and those identified as high achieving and low

achieving. The teachers in the experimental group were asked to employ the Odyssey

Math program for 60 minutes per week. The math program’s tracking system indicated

that for the overall study the teachers used the Odyssey Math program for an average of

38 minutes per week. The researchers observed classroom instruction throughout the

study.

The results found that there was not a statistically significant difference in fourth

grade achievement on the TerraNova CTBS Basic Battery assessment when the Odyssey

Math technological instructional method and the traditional math instruction were

employed. The researchers did not find a statistically significant difference when looking

at gender and high achieving and low achieving students. The researchers investigated

42



the difference between teacher professional training and still did not find a statistically

significant difference. Wijekumar et al. (2009) emphasized that the results of their study

relate to partial use of the Odyssey Math technological program and not full

implementation. The researchers acknowledged that the participating schools volunteered

for the study and emphasized that the results should not be generalized outside the Mid-

Atlantic Region.

Yu et al. (2010) studied the effects of Web based instruction on seventh grade

science students in Taiwan. The researcher investigated the effects of Web based

instruction compared to traditional instruction had on student academic achievement in

biology and on the students’ problem solving skills. The researchers looked at the same

questions as it pertained to identified high achievers and low achievers. The 156

participants were gathered from four different junior high schools. Seventy-eight students

were put in the experimental group who received web based instruction. The remaining

78 students in the control group received traditional methods of instruction. The

researchers then divided the participants into groups of high achievers and low achievers.

Yu et al. classified the high achievers as the students that scored above average on the

first biology assessment. The low achievers were the students who scored lower than

average on the same assessment. There were 52 low achievers identified and 104 high

achievers.

The students received six weeks of instruction in evolution. The same instructor

taught all the participants in the study. The experimental group used computers and

engaged in web instruction including PowerPoint, the Internet, interactive technologies,

discussion boards, and web-based problem solving activities. The control group received

instruction in the lecture format and textbooks served as the source of information. Oral

43



conversations were the only method of sharing and interaction for the control group. The

experimental group used the computer as a tool to discover unknown science concepts;

there were no restrictions for accessing the information. The control group used paper

and pencil as they ascertained the science concepts; the control group was required to

follow a sequence while discovering the science concepts.

The students were given a pre-test, post-test, and retention assessment. The results

found that the experimental group scored higher on the post-test and retention

assessment. When the researchers ran the MANCOVA using the pretest score as a

covariate they did not find a statistically significant difference in the end assessments

when compared to the pretest. The researchers concluded that the instructional method

did not influence student academic achievement. The results did find that the high

achievers outscored the low achievers. However, when the pretest score was used as the

covariate they did not find a consistent statistically significance in the mean post

assessments. For the problem solving aspect of the study, the control group outscored the

experimental group in all categories on the post-test. Yet, after five months the retention

assessment was administered and the experimental group outperformed the control group

in all categories. The researchers determined that the web instructional method was

statistically significant in the areas of problem solving and retention.

Yu et al. (2010) expressed that the research literature did not support their

findings concerning problem solving and retention. They indicated that the experimental

group was required to follow a rigorous three step method to solve problems. The same

method was not required for the control group. They believe that when the participants

took the post-test they did not have enough time to process the information and gain the

benefits from the learning process. That is why they reasoned that after five months the

44



retention assessment showed that there was a statistically significant difference for the

experimental group; the students had time to gain the benefits from the instructional

method. The researchers thought the Web based instruction would motivate the low

achieving students. They did not find that either method of instruction was better than the

other to engage the low achievers. Yu et al. (2010) noted that the students identified as

low achieving had lower mean assessment scores compared to their counterparts;

however, they had higher mean scores than the high achieving students in the area of

problem solving. While the researchers suggested that more research is needed, they

believe that low achieving students will benefit from web instructional methods.

Virtual Lecture Hall

Cramer et al.’s (2007) research study, noted to be one of the largest, included 839

possible participants taking an introductory psychology class at a university in Ontario,

Canada. The researchers believed that the Virtual Lecture Hall (VLH) would lead to

increased student retention. The VLH was “an instructional computer-based platform for

delivering Microsoft PowerPoint slides threaded with audio clips” (Cramer et al., 2007, p.

106). The purpose of the VLH tool was to provide a tool for students to review class

lectures accessed via a website. The researchers recognized the changing dynamics of

today’s education with more classes being offered online and through distance learning.

Their premise was that using the VLH pedagogical tool would lead to greater retention of

material for students, increase student test scores, and increase student course

satisfaction.

In the Cramer et al. (2007) study, 165 students chose to utilize the VLH learning

tool. Students were not offered incentives for participation in the study. The participants

were required to enter their name and student number on the website to access the class

45



lecture through VLH. The participants understood that their use on the website was being

monitored for the purpose of the research study. After accessing VLH, students were

asked to complete a five-point Likert scale survey stating their reactions to VLH.

Respondents identified whether VLH increased their learning, their grades, and their

preference to have VLH made available in other classes.

In the Cramer et al.’s (2007) study the students took the midterm exam after the

first five weeks of the semester. The VLH tool was then made available to the students

and the midterm exam was used as the baseline. VLH tool was obtainable for the students

for the next five weeks prior to the next midterm type exam. The results found that when

students viewed over 100 hours of PowerPoint presentations, in the form of VLH, their

grades increased by 15% the second part of the semester. A positive correlation identified

those students that viewed VLH recurrently scored significantly higher on their second

exam. Student perceptions of the VLH tool were positive believing its use would increase

their learning and test scores. Ninety-three percent of the participants commented that

they would like to have the VLH pedagogical tool offered in their other courses.

In this researcher’s opinion, Cramer et al. (2007) had the opportunity to include a

large number of participants for their study. They could have possibly done a better job of

recruiting participants without applying pressure to the students. The newness of the

VLH tool may have been another reason students chose not to access the website. The

research team could have provided various ways to demonstrate how to access the site

and share the positive reasons for doing so. Present technology especially with Mac

computers allows for students to access the class lecture if they take notes during the

class. This may be another reason why students did not feel the need to utilize the VLH

tool. However, the VLH tool was the only resource available for a student who missed

46



class. Additionally, students may have not accessed the VLH tool because today’s digital

natives appear to be less inclined to utilize all the teaching tools made available to them.

It would be advisable to replicate this study with students from other majors. This study

did not have the students critique what was positive and what was negative with the

Virtual Lecture Hall teaching tool.

Web 2.0 Technology and Instruction

United Kingdom researchers Ward et al. (2009) studied incorporating Web 2.0

technologies in instruction in the health care curriculum at the university level. The

authors noted that educational instruction has not kept pace with the latest technological

trends including the use of Web 2.0 tools. They recognized that the Virtual Learning

Environment (VLE), an interactive learning environment online, is limited in its

capabilities as compared to the more current Web 2.0 tools. The researchers included

social networking, web communities, wikis, blogs, web design and creation, information

sharing, and collaboration as Web 2.0 tools (Ward et al., 2009).

The researchers initially used personal contacts to identify the participants for the

study. They then utilized the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Major

Review of healthcare listings and the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service lists to

enhance their participant list (Ward et al., 2009). Twenty-five universities in the United

Kingdom were represented in the initial phase of the research study the survey portion.

The Web 2.0 study was both quantitative and qualitative. The participants completed a

survey adapted from the Managed Learning Environment Study Tool (Ward et al., 2009).

Then the researchers met with survey respondents in a focus group format to gain a

deeper more detail understanding of the participants’ answers to the survey tool.

Ward et al. (2009) found that email, discussion boards, and CD-ROMS, DVDs

47



were the most prevalent used technological tools for instruction. Many Web 2.0 tools

such as wikis, blogs, SMS Texting, mobile phones, and iPods were used in a very limited

capacity if at all. The case study visits were productive in that the researchers were able

to ascertain the reasons that the latest Web 2.0 tools were being neglected in instruction.

The researchers discovered that E-learning is not a priority at the 25 universities in the

study with the individuals who possess the purchasing authority. Therefore, the

universities lacked the hardware to support increased technological instruction. The study

also found that most of the faculty and staff lacked information technology (IT) skills and

knowledge. This may have also been a factor influencing the lack of hardware support for

instruction because the faculty and staff did not advocate for an increase in technology

support for instruction.

Ward et al. (2009) found that the students were not interested in seeing social

networking incorporated into instruction. The participants expressed the desire to keep

their social networking tools such as Facebook separate from their education. They

communicated the belief that social networking was for personal use only. A faculty

member shared a concern that the students were unaware of the negative implications that

could result from exposure to their social networking sites. The faculty member cited

articles and news reports highlighting the negative consequences when an individual’s

social networking site becomes public.

Ward et al.’s (2009) method of identifying participants was not the most effective

and could have led to influencing the results of the survey. By using personal contacts to

identify the participants, the respondents may not have answered the survey in a

completely impartial manner. Knowing the researchers may have influenced the

participants’ responses causing them answer the questions to align with the expectations

48



of the researchers purposely or unknowingly. The researchers also noted that when they

used the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Major Review of healthcare

listings and the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions lists they found many duplicates

from the three sources utilized to identify participants. The researchers noted that their

sources did find many duplicates and that contact information was missing. Therefore, a

participant for the study may have answered the survey more than once without the

knowledge of the researchers.

The results of Ward et al.’s (2009) study identified that a majority of the faculty

lacked the information technology skills and knowledge needed to incorporate Web 2.0

technologies in instruction. There needs to be professional development for instructors to

be able to keep pace with the technology skills, expectations, and desires of their

students. The faculty and staff’s lack of information technology knowledge and

understanding may be a factor preventing the universities from purchasing the proper

equipment to support the more advanced methods of technological instruction. The lack

of technological support leads to frustration for the faculty and staff who have embraced

technology and desire to implement more interactive Web 2.0 tools in their classroom

instruction. Ward, Moule, and Lockyer noted the needs of the universities seem to

override the learning needs of the students. They express that the potential of using the

innovative pedagogical tools available is being ignored by the majority of faculty and

universities.

Modeling Technology in Instruction

Professor Alicia Crowe (2004) researched the impact of modeling technology in

instruction on social studies education students. The author noted that the social studies

discipline had not kept pace with other disciplines in integrating technology into

49



instruction. Crowe integrated technology instruction in two courses she taught at a

university in a social studies education course and a seminar course that education major

students take before their 96 hour practicum. She taught both courses to the same group

of 23 students. One student dropped the course after being called for active duty to serve

in the military. The researcher’s purpose was to model the use of technology in

instruction and encourage student use of technology. The researcher employed the

strategy of modeling different technological classroom instructional methods and

required the students to complete a project implementing technology.

During the first course students were asked to complete a technology survey. The

survey attempted to gain an understanding of the students’ technology use comfort levels

and their willingness to incorporate technology in their instruction as future teachers.

Throughout the semester the professor documented the use of technology through lesson

plans, journals, and student work. Crowe (2004) interviewed a student in the course. The

student utilized technology frequently in the class, yet the subject expressed during the

interview that she felt she lacked the knowledge and comfort to employ technology. The

student interview occurred on two different occasions. After transcribing and evaluating

the interviews, the professor decided to ascertain the perceptions of a second student.

The second interviewee had collaborated on class assignments with the first

interview subject. He expressed a high comfort level using technology. The results of the

interviews with the two students led to Crowe (2004) devising another student survey.

The second questionnaire dealt the with the subjects’ influences of technology. The

second survey was administered at the end of the second course before the 96-hour

practicum. After the second survey three more students participated in one on one

interviews with the professor.

50



Crowe (2004) found that teacher modeling of technology strongly influences

students’ desire and motivation to employ similar instructional techniques. After the first

course the researcher noted students employing technological strategies throughout their

coursework. By the end of the second course students were using technology more

frequently and comfortably. The professor observed students using PowerPoint and

incorporating images, graphics, video clips, charts, graphs, and music into their

presentations. She noted that even when technology was not required most of the students

still chose to incorporate technology into their assignments. Students began using web

sites to enhance their assignments. Some students created web sites for their future

classes. The researcher highlighted the students’ perceptions that the instructional method

of incorporating technology strongly impacted their acceptance and utilization of

technology themselves. Crowe shared she learned that professors must model

instructional technology and doing so or failure to do so sends an important message to

their students.

In this researcher’s opinion, the researcher demonstrated the importance of

modeling technology especially if future teachers are going to be expected to incorporate

technology in their instruction. Similar to Ward et al. (2009), Crowe found technological

instruction cannot proceed and be enhanced without the support and encouragement from

the administration and faculty. Crowe (2004) did not identify the age group of her

students. Most likely some of these students would have qualified as digital natives. It

would have been important for her to note whether the students who felt more

comfortable with using technology were digital natives or not. It would have been good

to know if some of the students were digital immigrants. As Kvavik et al. (2004),

Kennedy et al. (2008), Bennett et al. (2008) clarified, the varying levels of technological

51



expertise does exist between the digital natives. Crowe’s research could have added to

this information if the ages of the students had been identified.

Using her students for the study provides some drawbacks to the validity of the

research. The question arises if the students were completely honest answering the two

surveys. Did the students respond in a manner they perceived that their professor wanted

them to? In the case of the student interviews the subjects may have been hesitant to be

candid because their professor was interviewing them—the same professor who was

responsible for their grade in the course. Crowe’s (2004) intention for her research was

good, and her results did show that modeling is important to increase student learning and

incorporating technology in instruction. By being part of the study the researcher led the

validity of the results to some speculation even though the study resulted in positive

outcomes for the 22 students.

Students’ Use of Computers in Social Settings

Cilesiz (2009) performed a phenomenological study to gain a better understanding

of adolescents’ computer use and experiences at Internet cafes. Adolescents spending

leisure time at Internet cafes continues to increase. The author identified a void in the

area of research looking at students’ computer use in leisure situations. Cilesiz asserted

the potential to understand significant educational implications can be identified by

studying adolescents’ social computer use at Internet cafes. The researcher’s goal was to

understand the adolescent experience and to apply his findings to an educational context.

Cilesiz defined an Internet cafe as a public business allowing for social gathering that

offers Internet capability to their patrons. Internet cafes are mostly social where groups

can informally form. Cilesiz broke down the context of education and learning into three

groups: computer use in formal learning environments; computer use in non-formal

52



learning environments; and computer use in informal learning environments.

Cilesiz (2009) performed his research in Turkey in a city with a population of

250,000 people. The city in the research study had approximately 180 Internet cafes.

Cilesiz’ recruited volunteers from two Internet cafes. The criterions used to select his

subjects were students who visited the Internet cafes at least two times per week and

adolescents who used the computers for educational tasks. The researcher interviewed his

potential subjects asking how they used computers in this social setting for educational

purposes. He did not provide the volunteers with an interpretation of computer

educational use. Prior to the interviews, Cilesiz identified eight items as acceptable

responses to his questions. Six subjects were selected to participate in the

phenomenological study. The subjects were high school students who had parental

consent to participate in the study. The participants agreed to engage in audio taped

interviews.

The subjects participated in three open ended detailed interviews. The interviews

lasted no longer than 90 minutes and took place in a public area. The interviews were

transcribed verbatim and merged into one document (Cilesiz, 2009, p. 243). Cilesiz

explained that he translated into English the comments and statements he determined to

be significant. To increase validity he sought out peer review for his selections and

translations. When analyzing the data the researcher interpreted meaning units, developed

profiles called individual textural descriptions, he employed imaginative variation for

interpretation, as well as comprising individual structural descriptions for each subject.

Then the author integrated his results to identify similarities amongst his subjects.

To increase validity of the study the researcher was assisted by a fellow professor

fluent in Turkish and English. First the peer reviewer analyzed Cilesiz’s (2009) data

53



collection results to determine relevancy to the research study. Then the peer reviewer

evaluated the Turkish to English translations to ensure accuracy. In keeping with the

integrity and ethical requirements of a phenomenological study the researcher did not

compensate his participants financially. He chose to make himself available to the

participants for advice relating to the college admissions process and studying abroad

(Cilesiz, 2009, p. 245).

Cilesiz’s (2009) results tie to Kvavik et al. (2004), Bennett et al. (2008), Jing

(2009), and Kennedy et al.’s (2008) results in that his subjects recognized that using

technology for social purposes does not help them reach their full potential using

technology to help them educationally and in their future careers. The six subjects have

built an identity that defines them by their computer use. They expressed that they felt

they were experts in using computers and accessing information. All six subjects

indicated career choices that technology and computer use would be beneficial or

required. The subjects all recognized the value of using computers educationally in their

present and future lives.

Cilesiz (2009) reported the subjects felt the Internet cafes provided them the

opportunity to interact with people who shared their interest in technology and

computers. The subjects reported that their computer use at Internet cafes served as a

compliment to their education at school. They could engage in more in-depth and

enriching activities that they did not have time for during the school day. All subjects

expressed that they liked the freedom they were allowed educationally at the Internet

cafes; they were not limited by the constraints in place at school. The participants

articulated that they were a minority when it came to adolescents’ use of computers

educationally in this environment.

54



As a professor at the Ohio State University, Cilesiz (2009) never explained why

he chose Turkey to perform his research study. He did have to translate the subjects’

responses into English. To help in this capacity, he employed a language expert to ensure

that his translations from Turkish to English grasped the intended meaning of his

interviews with his subjects. However, had this study been performed in Cilesiz’s native

language his understandings may have been more concrete. The opportunity for

misunderstanding and miscommunication increased when more individuals were

involved in the translations. The translator was not part of the actual interviews.

Cilesiz (2009) performed his research on a homogeneous group of subjects. It

would be beneficial to replicate the study with a more diverse selection of subjects. One

reason for the researcher’s inability to gain access to a more diverse participant pool was

the need for parental consent. There may very well be adolescents’ who use computers at

Internet cafes without their parents’ knowledge. Do the results found in this research

study correlate to student use of Internet cafes in the United States? Do adolescents in the

United States frequent Internet cafes in the same ways adolescents do in Turkey? Do

Internet cafes in Turkey mirror Internet cafes in America? These questions highlight that

the information of this study may not be able to translate to other environments. What the

study did show was that adolescents choose to use social and leisure activities to engage

in educational activities. This information can be the basis for further research and the

development of ways to engage students educationally outside of school.

Students’ Perceptions of Technological Instruction

D’Angelo and Wooley (2007) research included three areas: the technologies

students experience in the classroom; students’ perceptions of technological learning

environments; and do subpopulations of students view the effectiveness of technological

55



learning environments differently. The research study took place at a large midwestern

university with students enrolled in criminal justice courses. Subjects were from four

different courses and almost equally represented the freshman, sophomore, junior and

senior classes. No incentive was offered for participation in the study. The racial

breakdown of the subjects was “88% Caucasian, 6% African-American, 5% Latino, and

1% different racial/ethnic background” (D’Angelo & Wooley, p. 465).

D’Angelo and Wooley (2007) determined that 98% of the students had been

exposed to technology in the classroom (p. 465). Consistent with other research

performed by Bartsch and Cobern (2003) and Hansen and Williams (2008), the subjects’

perceived that learning was enhanced when the PowerPoint presentation method of

instruction was used in class. Participants felt that the PowerPoint presentation method of

instruction was more effective then classes using the chalk and lecture method of

instruction and classes using Blackboard© and online course activities. For the

subpopulations, there was no difference in students’ perception when comparing “gender,

race, academic major, and college status” (D’Angelo & Wooley, 2007, p. 468).

In this researcher’s opinion the research study should be replicated at other

colleges and universities. It would be good to perform the study at schools that are noted

for their technological use and those that lack the technological means. This study

focused exclusively on students’ perception and not learning. Another area where

D’Angelo and Wooley (2007) could improve their study would be to identify the positive

and negative aspects of PowerPoint as perceived by the students. The study should also

be replicated at a more racially balanced institution.

Burke and James (2005) sought to discover students’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of PowerPoint instruction in college business courses. The authors wanted

56



to ascertain students’ insights as to what makes PowerPoint presentations effective and

determine the frequency of use by professors. The setting for the study was an urban

university in the South. Data was collected over a two-week period starting with 230

participants. Some professors offered extra credit to students to encourage participation in

the research study. Students were asked to answer only the Likert type questionnaire one

time, as they may be enrolled in two or more classes participating in the study.

Burke and James (2005) found almost 33% of the faculty stated they never used

PowerPoint presentations in class. Twenty-seven percent of the faculty claimed to utilize

PowerPoint always and 14.3% claimed to use PowerPoint frequently. The student

participants rated PowerPoint presentations effectiveness in their class. The results

indicated that the subjects identified the most effective use of the PowerPoint

instructional method was in their management courses followed by marketing and

economics. Accounting was the one class that students did not deem PowerPoint as an

effective teaching tool.

To gain a clear understanding of the students’ perceptions Burke and James

(2005) asked the subjects to articulate what they deemed as positive and what was

negative about the faculty using the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction in

class. The positive aspects of using PowerPoint instruction included organization and

structure, graphics, pictures, and visuals. The negative aspects of PowerPoint as viewed

by the subjects were related to the instructor not using the presentation software properly.

This study distinguished the effectiveness of PowerPoint instruction by course content.

PowerPoint was found not to be as effective for courses that emphasize mathematical or

quantitative fundamentals where demonstration for working out problems is necessary.

Burke and James (2005) failed to use an accurate method to recruit subjects for

57



the study. Students had the option to participate with the enticement of extra credit or

class participation points. There were various reasons as to whether the student would

participate or not. There was no way to determine if a student answered more than one

questionnaire in other business classes especially with the enticement of extra points. The

research study did identify if the subjects viewed PowerPoint more positively in

conceptual courses rather than the quantitative courses.

The researchers identified suggestions and tips that the subjects’ felt make the use

of the PowerPoint presentation method of instruction more effective:

The font needs to be at least 28 point and a type of sans-serif. Arial, a sans-

serif font, is also a font found to be effective for students with dyslexia.

Retention increases by stressing key points on the slide.

Slides should be limited to five bullets.

Color, visuals, sounds, and graphics should all be relevant to the topic.

Slide background and text should be in contrasting colors using no more than

three colors.

For ease of reading avoid the use of red.

Do not bombard the students with too many slides. Use the slides to motivate

and encourage student participation (Burke and James, 2005, pp. 249-250).

The results of this study did offer helpful tips for educators when designing future

PowerPoint presentations for instruction.

Perceptions of Learning and Public Libraries

Shirley Biladeau (2009), along with the Idaho Commission for Libraries,

performed a statewide study with participants from the ages of 12 to 25 to determine the

perceptions of digital natives towards learning and public libraries. Results from the
58



Idaho study found that digital natives value education and learning. They perceived

education as the way to “progress” or get ahead in life. They wanted exposure to

opposing viewpoints, from the Internet and face to face interaction. They wanted learning

to be presented in fun and innovative ways. They expressed that books and information

obtained in a library is more credible than the Internet; nevertheless they prefer the ease

of speed of the Internet. The study served to help public libraries adjust to meet the

digital natives’ need. The study also provided insight for educators as to how to reach the

digital natives in the classroom.

Summary

Hansen and Williams (2008), Wiley et al. (2009), Eysink et al. (2009), and Lu and

Gordon (2009), Apperson et al. (2004), and Sugahara and Boland (2006) found that the

use of technological methods of instruction did not increase learning. Most research

found that using technological instructional methods did not correlate to increased test

scores. Presently, PowerPoint is the most widely used and researched method of

instructional technology in education. However, the literature review overwhelmingly

concluded that students perceive that the use of the PowerPoint method of instruction

does increase learning. Koeber’s (2005) study found that students perceived that the

professors who utilized the PowerPoint method of instruction were more effective

teachers. In addition, Clark’s (2008) findings determined that the PowerPoint method was

a nice supplement to the instruction, notes should be made available before class, and the

professor should not read the notes to the class.

Instruction needs to incorporate technology effectively, and research needs to be

performed to discover instructional methods supported by empirical evidence. Students

want to be engaged in their learning; they want learning to be fun and creative.

59



Regardless if you accept Prensky’s (2001) concept of the digital native, today’s students

have been exposed to the fast pace of information provided by technology and expect

quick results to their questions. Researchers have identified positive aspects of

PowerPoint and suggest ways to incorporate these techniques in classroom instruction.

The need for more empirical evidence concerning technology, learning, and digital

natives exists.

As Ward et al. (2009) asserted the gap in the literature was that little research had

been performed studying the effects of Web 2.0 instructional technologies on student

achievement. This research study looked at the difference between the whiteboard/lecture

method of instruction and the technological method of instruction on student

achievement. The Framework for 21st Century Learning calls for educators to focus on

employing technology that develops learners that will think critically and be able to apply

their knowledge creatively. Educators should continue to seek better ways to employ

technological methods of instruction to engage and appeal to their students as well as

develop an understanding of the new technologies that may enhance classroom

instruction.

60



CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of the research study was to discover if integrating technology into

instruction improves student academic achievement. The study was a non-equivalent

control group design using random assignment. The study took place in a suburban public

school district in the Southeast about 30 miles from a metropolitan city. The participants

were fifth grade math and science students. Most research literature addresses Web 1.0

technology static and non-interactive instructional technology. While Lu and Gordon

(2009), Wiley et al. (2009), Eysink et al. (2009), Ward et al. (2009), Cilesiz (2009),

Crowe (2004), Yu et al. (2010), and Wijekumar, et al. (2009) have all performed research

studies relating to the use of Web 2.0 tools there is still limited research focusing on Web

2.0 interactive technologies. This study strove to contribute to the literature regarding the

integration of Web 2.0 technologies in classroom instruction.

Participants

The participants for the study were 51 fifth grade students. One group was

comprised of 26 participants: 13 males and 13 females. The next group was 25

participants: 11 females and 14 males. Of the 25 participants in one class two students

qualified for the Early Intervention Program (EIP) and a collaborative teacher worked

with the classroom teacher. The two students in the EIP program were not classified as

special education students. The fifth grade participants received math and science

instruction from the same teacher. The two groups received their English and social

studies instruction from another teacher. The average age for a fifth grade student is 10 to

11 years old. Nine to 12 years of age was the age range of students in the class. The

61



variation in the students’ ages, 9–12 range, could be a result of either student retentions

or student transfers; hence they have not fulfilled Georgia’s fifth grade math and science

curriculum requirements.

Setting/Demographics

The study was conducted in an elementary school in a small suburban public

school district in the Southeast. The school district was 30 miles south of a metropolitan

city. All other surrounding school districts were suburban. The school district in the study

was a county school system. The school district had 22,073 students from pre-

kindergarten through twelfth grade. The male to female population was close with

10,878 females and 11,995 males. The ethnic/racial breakdown for the student population

in the district was as follows: (a) 4.4% Asian, b) 23.8% African-American, (c) 6.2%

Hispanic, (d) 0.2% Native American, (e) 1.5% multiracial, and (f) 62% White. In the

district, 13.8% of the students received free or reduced lunches the same percentage of

students that were identified as gifted. Comparing the district to the ethnic/racial

population for the state, the breakdown was as follows: (a) 2.7% Asian, (b) 38.3%

African-American, (c) 8.5% Hispanic, (d) 0.1% Native American, and (e) 47.9% White.

In the state 49.7% of the student population received free or reduced lunches and 7.2% of

the students were identified as gifted.

The elementary school in the research study had a total student population of 501

students. The ethnic/racial breakdown for the student population in the research study

was as follows: (a) 6% (28) Asian, (b) 2% (12) African American, (c) 5% (23) Hispanic,

(d) 1% (9) multiracial, and (e) 86% (420) White. Students receiving free or reduced

lunches were 6% (31) of the student population. Students identified as gifted were 22%

(106) of the student population.

62



The school in the research study was known for the strong parental and

community support it consistently receives. The Parent Teacher Organization was an

active and supportive presence in the school. Parents volunteered on a daily basis

assisting with the needs of the school community. Many of the parents are educated and

have high expectations for academic achievement for their children. Zoom Prospector

reported in 2011 that 41.50% of the population in the county where the research study

was performed had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Research Design

The study was a non-equivalent control group design purposely using random

assignment of treatment employing a pre-test and post-test. Random allocation limits bias

by employing a double blind experiment so the statistician will not know which group

received which treatment. Random assignment was employed to select the control group

for math. A coin toss was the method of random assignment used to make the selection.

Class A was heads and Class B was tails. The coin toss determined which class received

the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction for math. The class that won the coin toss

automatically received technological instruction for science. Therefore, the class that did

not win the coin toss received technological instruction for math and whiteboard/lecture

instruction for science. The reason for using this method, to select the control and

experimental group, was to avoid putting either group of students at an educational

disadvantage if one method of instruction was found to affect student achievement.

To allow for an unbiased comparison of treatments, Yates et al. (2008) explained

that random assignment of treatments is important when the subjects are known to be

similar. The randomization will average out the effects of the remaining factors that

cannot be controlled. The participants have been placed into “equivalent’ groups by non-

63



random assignment. The non-random placement leads to bias. However, the two

comparison groups were of approximately equal “dimensions”, and the random

assignment of treatment to the groups mitigates some of the placement bias.

Using specific criteria, the principal and school counselor determined the non-

random assignment of equivalent groups. The first criterion was to place an equal amount

of gifted students in each class. Another criterion was to keep the gender evenly

distributed between the two classes. Student behavior was the third criterion, and social

issues were the fourth criterion that the principal and school counselor considered when

placing the students. The principal did allow the parents to express their child’s

placement preferences with a valid explanation. There were no special education students

in the two control groups. The method of assignment was intended to produce two

“equivalent” classes. Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) scores were

collected on the participants from the 2009-2010 school year in the areas of math and

science to further aid in identifying the equivalency of the control and experimental

groups.

Peck, Olsen, and Devore (2010) stated, “When the (independent) two-sample t

test is used to compare two treatments when the individuals in the experiment are not

randomly selected from the population, it is only an approximate test (the reported p-

values are only approximate). However, this is still the most common way to analyze

such data” (p. 592). An independent t-test is a strong test to use when the sample size is

less than 30. Yates, Moore, and Starnes (2008) explained it is appropriate to use a t test

when the sample size is at least 15. They emphasized that “the t procedures are quite

robust against non-Normality of the population when there are no outliers, especially

when the distribution is roughly symmetric” (Yates et. al, 2008, p. 655). Therefore, it is

64



necessary to graph the data to check its shape to verify normality.

The independent t test was an appropriate statistical measurement to employ when

comparing the means of the control and experimental groups. The independent t test was

utilized to test the hypotheses. Variables were the difference in the mean scores of both

the control and experimental groups. The control group received the whiteboard/lecture

method of instruction, and the experimental group received the technological methods of

instruction. An independent t test was utilized to determine if a statistically significant

difference existed between the mean 2011 Math CRCT score of the control group and the

mean 2011 Math CRCT score of the experimental group. The independent t test was then

utilized to determine if a statistically significant difference existed between the mean

2011Science CRCT score of the control group and the mean 2011Science CRCT score of

the experimental group.

Peck et al. (2010) explained that:

a confidence interval (CI) for a population characteristic is an interval

of plausible values for the characteristic. It was constructed so a chosen

degree of confidence, the value of the characteristic will be captured

between the upper and lower endpoints of the interval. The confidence

level associated with the confidence interval estimate is the success rate

of the method used to construct the interval. (p. 483)

It was necessary to identify a value for the population characteristic. A two sample

confidence interval test was run to find a value for the population characteristic.

Instrumentation

Two different instructional methods were the independent variables in this

research study. One method was the whiteboard and lecture method of instruction, and

65



the other method was the implementation of instructional technologies including the 21st

century classroom, classroom response system, online videos, online testing, online

games, BrainPOP, and PowerPoint. SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)

statistical software was the measurement tool. The SPSS software program is one of the

most widely used statistical analysis programs used for educational research. The

University of Southern California Information Technology Services website stated,

“SPSS is a powerful application that allows you to read almost any kind of data, analyze

that data, and create reports and graphs from that data” (2010). The SPSS software

program was an efficient and concise tool to measure the variables in the study.

The instrument to measure student achievement was the 2011 Math Criterion

Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) and the 2011 Science CRCT scores. The Georgia

Department of Education reported that “the CRCTs have a high degree of validity,

because they serve their intended purpose which was to measure student mastery of the

Georgia Performance Standards, the state’s curriculum” (2010, p. 6). The 2011 Math

CRCT and 2011 Science CRCT were valid and reliable. The development of the CRCT

started with the state curriculum: the GPS. The CRCT assessments measured the

performance of students from grades one through eight in the following content areas:

math, science, reading, English language arts, and social studies. The Georgia

Department of Education reported:

The careful development from inception of the CRCT testing program

and all steps in-between such as alignment with curriculum, creation

of test and item specifications, multiple reviews by educators, careful

form construction by content experts and psychometricians provide

evidence that the CRCT are valid instruments. (2010, p. 6)

66



The Georgia Department of Education used the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient

and the standard error of measurement (SEM) to assess the reliability of the CRCT. The

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the math CRCT for fifth grade was .93, and

.90 for the science CRCT for fifth grade. The raw score of the SEM for fifth grade math

was 3.09 and 3.25 for fifth grade science (2010, p. 4-5). The reliability measurements

proved that the CRCT was a reliable test. The teacher in the study used the questions

from the math and science CRCT tests and the GPS to design his assessments (Georgia

Department of Education, 2011).

Preliminary Procedures

The researcher communicated with the prospective teacher to discuss the details

of this research study. The researcher chose to use this particular teacher because he

embraces technology and comfortably incorporates its use in his instruction. He did not

require additional training or professional development in technological instructional

methods. Another positive reason for selecting the specific teacher for the study was that

he taught the same students for math and science. Using the same group of participants

with one instructor eliminated teacher effect influencing the outcome of the study. The

researcher and fifth grade teacher discussed the particular aspects of the study. The

researcher and fifth grade teacher discussed the terms whiteboard/lecture instruction and

technological instruction. They came to a consensus on the definition of the terms. The

whiteboard/lecture instruction was a teacher centered lecture method of instruction.

Technological instruction included using the DLP projector, the classroom response

system, the Mobi pad, several software programs such as Brain Pop, and the Internet.

They discussed the various methods of instructional technology that would be employed

throughout the study.

67



After gaining the teacher’s consent to participate in this study, the researcher

contacted the building principal. The researcher shared the details of the study with the

principal and tentatively received her approval pending IRB approval. The building

principal provided the researcher with written permission to perform the study at the

elementary school (see Appendix B). The researcher also met with the Human Resources

Director to discuss the study. The Human Resources Director offered her full support for

the research study.

The pre-test for this study, the 2010 Math Criterion Referenced Competency Test

math and the 2010 Science CRCT test scores, were collected on the participants. The

researcher assumed that the GPS and CRCT exam questions were valid and reliable

assessment tools as determined by the State of Georgia. The Georgia Department of

Education reported that the CRCT were valid and reliable assessments that align with the

GPS (2010, pg. 6).

Upon receiving the Human Resources Director and building principal’s approval,

the fifth grade math and science teacher began the research study at the beginning of the

semester in January 2011. Random assignment was the method employed to select the

control group for math. A coin toss was the method of random assignment used to make

the selection. Class A was heads and Class B was tails. The class that won the coin toss

received the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction for math. This class then received

technological instruction for science. The class that received the whiteboard/lecture

method of instruction for science received technological instruction for math. All subjects

were exposed to both instructional methods.

For the experimental group, the fifth grade teacher incorporated 21st century

technology in his instruction. Twenty-first century technology included a teacher

68



computer, speakers, voice amplification (a microphone the teacher wears around his

neck), Pixie Wall Controller (control unit to change from computer to video and has

access to the speakers), a Mobi pad (a hand-held interactive whiteboard), a mounted DLP

projector connected to the Internet displayed on a large screen in the classroom, and a

classroom response system (each student has an interactive remote control to

simultaneously answer questions). The control group received whiteboard and lecture

instruction from the teacher.

At the end of each unit, both the control group and experimental group took a

teacher designed test or assessment. The teacher designed his assessments using test

questions from the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) and past Criterion Referenced

Competency Tests (CRCT) in the subjects of math and science. He chose this method of

assessment design to prepare his students for the CRCT exams given in the spring. The

teacher assessed the students’ learning throughout the entire semester.

Data Collection

Research Question 1

What is the difference between the 2011 Math CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in math? The 2011 Math CRCT tests were

administered at the end of the semester. The principal, school counselor, teacher,

researcher, and the statistician were the only individuals who had access to the 2010 and

2011 Math CRCT test scores. At the end of the semester, the teacher provided the

researcher with the 2011 Math CRCT test scores for the participants. The researcher

recorded the participants’ 2010 Math CRCT scores in an Excel spreadsheet. Then the

researcher recorded the participants’ 2011 Math CRCT scores in an Excel Spreadsheet

69



matching the results with the 2010 Math CRCT results. Following IRB regulations, the

participants’ identity will remain confidential.

Research Question 2

What is the difference between the 2011 Science CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction including Web 2.0 technologies in science? The 2011 Science CRCT tests

were administered to the participants at the end of the semester. The principal, school

counselor, teacher, researcher, and the statistician were the only individuals who had

access to the data. At the end of the semester, the teacher provided the researcher with

the 2011 Science CRCT test scores for the participants. The researcher recorded the

participants’ 2010 Science CRCT scores in an Excel spreadsheet. Then the researcher

recorded the participants’ 2011 Science CRCT scores in an Excel Spreadsheet matching

the results with the 2010 Science CRCT results. Following IRB regulations, the

participants’ identity will remain confidential.

Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher works at a high school and has a professional working relationship

with the math department. An Advanced Placement Statistics Teacher at the researcher’s

school agreed to assist in the data analysis for this research project. They analyzed the

data and ran the SPSS software program together. He has made himself available to

consult with the statistical analysis.

The data were coded in an Excel spreadsheet for Class A and Class B. Once the

all the data have been collected the SPSS Software program was used to run the statistical

tests. The researcher saved the Excel spreadsheets on a flash drive. The flash drive only

holds the spreadsheets and data analysis results; it was not storing any other information.

70



The flash drive was at the researcher’s home in a personal filing cabinet. The researcher

will store the flash drive for seven years, and then delete the information.

Research Question 1

What is the difference between the 2011 Math CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in math?

Null hypothesis 1. There will not be a statistically significant difference between

the 2011 Math CRCT scores of the students who received whiteboard and lecture

instruction and the students who received technological instruction, including Web 2.0

technologies.

Using the SPSS statistical software, an independent t test using the difference of

means was employed. A mean score was calculated for the 2010 Math CRCT, the pre-

test, for both the experimental and control groups. Then a mean score was calculated for

the 2011 Math CRCT, the post-test, for the experimental and control groups. This

independent t-test was utilized to determine whether or not a statistically significant

difference in the means of the 2010 Math CRCT test scores between the experimental and

control groups existed. The independent t test also was employed to determine whether or

not a statistically significant difference in the means of the 2011 Math CRCT test scores

between the experimental and control groups existed.

Research Question 2

What is the difference between the 2011 Science CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction including Web 2.0 technologies in science?

71



Null hypothesis 2. There will not be a statistically significant difference between

the 2011Science CRCT scores of the students who received whiteboard and lecture

instruction and the students who received technological instruction, including Web 2.0

technologies.

The identity of the participants has remained confidential. The SPSS statistical

software was used to measure the difference between the experimental and control

groups. A mean score was calculated for the 2010 Science CRCT for both the control and

experimental groups. Then a mean score was calculated for the 2011 Science CRCT for

the participants in the study. An independent t test was utilized to determine the mean

difference between the control and experimental group. This independent t test was

utilized to determine whether or not a statistically significant difference in the means of

the 2010 Science CRCT test scores between the experimental and control groups existed.

The independent t test also was employed to determine whether or not a statistically

significant difference in the means of the 2011 Science CRCT test scores between the

experimental and control groups existed.

72



CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter includes the purpose of the study, the method of data analysis, the

research questions, the null and alternative hypotheses, and the results of this study. This

chapter also reports the results of the collected data and statistical analysis. The SPSS

software program was used to run the statistical analysis. The dependent variables were

the 2011 Math CRCT scores and the 2011 Science CRCT scores. The independent

variables were two instructional methodologies: 21st the whiteboard/lecture method of

instruction, and the technological instructional method including Web 2.0 technologies.

Overview of the Purpose of the Study

Educational researchers Prensky (2008), Tapscott (2009), and Sprenger (2010)

claimed that technology has changed the way today’s students learn. Educators are

encouraged to incorporate technology in their classroom instruction. The 21st century

learner has become one of the latest buzz words in education. The school system in the

research study expended the funds to implement 21st century classrooms in all the schools

in the district. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of integrating

technology into instruction and if it improved fifth grade students’ academic achievement

in math and science.

Method of Data Analysis

An independent t-test was the chosen method of data analysis. The SPSS software

program was used to run the independent t test statistical analysis. Peck et al. (2010)

stated, “Two samples are said to be independent if the selection of the individuals or

objects that make up one of the samples has no bearing on the selection of individuals or

73



objects in the other sample” (p. 606). When comparing two groups’ mean scores, the

authors stated the independent t test is an appropriate and efficient statistical

measurement to employ. In regard to this study, when comparing two groups an

independent t test was the most appropriate way to test the hypothesis. Peck et al. (2010)

stated the independent t test was an appropriate statistical measure for comparing

treatments of means.

Results

The researcher determined that the independent t test should be the method of

data analysis for this study. The independent t test should be employed when comparing

two means and when the treatments have been randomly assigned. If the sample size is

at least 15 and less than 30, it is necessary to graph the data to determine normality. If the

graph shows normality, it is then appropriate to use the t test.

For this study, the researcher utilized the SPSS software to analyze the student

data employing the independent t test to test the hypotheses. The SPSS program

identified the M (mean), the SD (standard deviation), the SEM (standard error mean), the

t value, the p value, the mean difference, and the CI (confidence interval) for the

collected data. This study involved both fifth grade math and science classes. For the

math classes in the study, the dependent variable was 2011Math CRCT scores. The

independent variable was the implementation of instructional methodologies. The control

group received the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction, and the experimental group

received technological methods of instruction including Web 2.0 tools. Consistent with

the math classes, for the science classes the dependent variable was 2011 Science CRCT

scores. The independent variable was the implementation of instructional methodologies.

The science control group received the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction. The

74



experimental group received technological methods of instruction including Web 2.0

tools. An independent t test was employed to determine if a statistically significant

difference exists between the control group’s mean 2011 Math CRCT score and the

experimental group’s mean 2011 Math CRCT score when technological instruction was

employed and when whiteboard and lecture was the method of instruction.

Research Question 1

What is the difference between the 2011 Math CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in math? The control group (Table 1) was

comprised of 25 participants: 14 males and 11 females. The control group (Class A)

received the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction. The experimental group was

comprised of 26 participants: 13 males and 13 females. The experimental group (Class B)

received the technological instruction, including Web 2.0 tools. The variation in the

students’ ages, 9-12 range, could be a result of either student retentions or student

transfers; hence they have not fulfilled Georgia’s fifth grade math and science curriculum

requirements.

Due to the sample size being less than 30, the data were graphed to check its

shape for normality. Because the graph of the data (Figure 1) was quite symmetrical, the

data can be interpreted as approximately normal. Consequently, the t test was a valid test

to employ for comparing the data. Yates, Moore, and Starnes (2008) emphasized that “

the t procedures are quite robust against non-Normality of the population when there are

no outliers, especially when the distriubtion is roughly symmetric” (p. 655). Peck, Olsen,

and Devore (2010) reinforced that an independent two sample t test should be used when

75



comparing two treatments that are randomly assigned and if the “treatment response

distributions are approximately normal” (p. 592).

Table 1

Major Study Variable for Math Instruction

_____________________________________________________________
Variables n
_____________________________________________________________
Control Group (Whiteboard and lecture instruction)
Participants’

Gender 25

Male 14

Female 11

Age 9–12

Experimental Group (Technological Instruction)

Participants’

Gender 26

Male 13

Female 13

Age 9–12
_____________________________________________________________

76



Figure 1: Distribution Graph of 2010 and 2011 Math and Science CRCT Scores

The SPSS statistical software program was used to employ an independent t test

to compare the mean 2011 Math CRCT scores for the control and experimental groups.

The M (mean) 2011 Math CRCT for Class A was 867.84 and 867.08 for Class B (Table

2). The independent t test identified t = .074 and p = .942. At a 95% confidence interval,

the critical value of t was 2.000, and the p = .942 was higher than any standard

significance level, and in particular the alpha level of .05 used with SPSS. Furthermore, p

= .942 means that one should expect to achieve a result with similar differences

approximately 94% of the time. Based on the data in Table 2, the researcher accepted the

null hypothesis Ho which stated: there will not be a statistically significant difference

between the 2011 Math CRCT scores of the students who received whiteboard/lecture

instruction and the students who received technological instruction, including Web 2.0

technologies. In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to say there is a statistically

significant difference between the mean 2011 Math CRCT scores for the control and

experimental groups in the subject of math.

77



Table 2

Psychometric Properties Comparing Lecture and Technological Instruction in Math

_________________________________________________________________

Group n M SD t p
_________________________________________________________________

Lecture
Instruction 25 867.84 31.03 .074 .942

Technological
Instruction 26 867.08 41.14 .074 .942

**significant at .05
_____________________________________________________________

Research Question 2

What is the difference between the 2011 Science CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in science? The control group for the math

portion of the study became the experimental group for the science phase of the study.

Likewise, the experimental group for the math portion of the study became the control

group for the science segment of the study. The control group, Class B, (Table 3) was

comprised of 26 participants: 13 males and 13 females. The control group received the

whiteboard/lecture method of instruction. The experimental group (Class A) was

comprised of 25 participants: 14 males and 11 females. The experimental group received

the technological instruction, including Web 2.0 tools. The variation in the students’ ages,

9-12 range, could be a result of either student retentions or student transfers; hence they

have not fulfilled Georgia’s fifth grade math and science curriculum requirements.

The number of the participants for the control group was 26, and the number of

participants for the experimental group was 25. The sample size for both groups was less

78



than 30. It is necessary to graph the data when n < 30. The histogram (Figure 1)

illustrates that the distribution of the data was normal. Therefore, the robust t test was an

appropriate statistical measurement to use to test the hypothesis.

Table 3

Major Study Variable for Science Instruction

_____________________________________________________________

Variables n
_____________________________________________________________
Control Group (Whiteboard and lecture instruction)

Participants’

Gender 26

Male 13

Female 13

Age 9-12

Experimental Group (Technological Instruction)

Participants’

Gender 25

Male 14

Female 11

Age 9-12
_____________________________________________________________

There was insufficient evidence to say there was a statistically significant

difference between the mean 2011 Science CRCT scores for the control and experimental

science classes. The summative assessments revealed that the M (mean) 2011Science

CRCT score for Class B, the control group, was 873.28, and 871.00 for the experimental

group, Class A (Table 4). The independent t test identified t = -.254 and p = .801. At a
79



95% confidence interval the critical value of t is 2.000 and p = .801 were higher than any

standard significance level, and in particular the alpha level of .05 used with SPSS.

Furthermore, the p = .801 means that one should expect to achieve a result with similar

differences approximately 80% of the time. Due to this study’s finding, the null

hypothesis was accepted. The null hypothesis Ho stated: there will not be a statistically

significant difference between the 2011 Science CRCT scores of the students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and the students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies.

Table 4

Psychometric Properties Comparing Whiteboard and Lecture Instruction to

Technological Instruction in Science

____________________________________________________________________

Group n M SD t p
____________________________________________________________________
Lecture
Instruction 26 873.28 29.99 -.254 .801

Technological
Instruction 25 871.00 33.50 -.254 .801
**significant at .05
___________________________________________________________________

80



CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Introduction

This study sought to discover if integrating technology into instruction improved

student academic achievement. Two different methods of instruction were employed for

thisresearch study. The first method of instruction was the traditional lecture and

whiteboard method. The second method of instruction was the use of technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies. Two classes of fifth grade math and science

students were studied.

Summary

The study took place in a suburban public school district in the southeast about 30

miles from a metropolitan city. The participants were fifth grade math and science

students. Fifty-one students participated in the non-equivalent control group design

study. The control group received the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction. The

experimental group received technological methods of instruction. There was a control

and experimental group for math and science instruction. The control group was selected

by random allocation. The data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software to

employ an independent t-test to measure the mean difference in the 2011 Math CRCT

scores and the 2011 Science CRCT scores between the experimental and control groups

Restatement of the Problem and Purpose

The problem was that the lack of access to and use of technology in education is

placing our students at a disadvantage and not meeting the educational needs of today’s

digital natives. The purpose of this study was to determine if integrating technological

81



instruction would improve fifth grade students’ academic achievement in math and

science.

Research Questions

Research Question 1

What is the difference between the 2011 Math CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in math? Based on the results of the

independent t test, the researcher accepted the null hypothesis Ho: there will not be a

statistically significant difference between the mean 2011Math CRCT scores of the

students who received whiteboard and lecture instruction and the students who received

technological instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies.

Research Question 2

What is the difference between the 2011 Science CRCT scores of students who

received whiteboard and lecture instruction and students who received technological

instruction, including Web 2.0 technologies in science? The results of the independent t-

test found no significant difference in the mean 2011 Science CRCT scores between the

control and experimental groups. Due to this study’s findings, the researcher accepted the

null hypothesis Ho: there will not be a statistically significant difference between the

2011 Science CRCT scores of the students who received whiteboard and lecture

instruction and the students who received technological instruction, including Web 2.0

technologies.

Discussion of Results

Research Question 1

Similar to this research study’s findings, the review of literature revealed that

82



technological instruction did not correlate to increased academic achievement. Hansen

and Williams (2008), Wiley et al. (2009), Eysink et al. (2009), and Lu and Gordon

(2009), and Sugahara and Boland (2006) all found implementing technological methods

of instruction did not increase student learning. The results of this research study match

the findings of these researchers. There was not a statistically significant difference in

fifth grade students’ mean 2011 Math CRCT scores when employing the

whiteboard/lecture method of instruction compared to the technological methods of

instruction. The control group for the math class scored only negligibly higher than the

experimental group, with a .76% difference in the mean 2011 Math CRCT scores as seen

in Table 2. The control group received the traditional whiteboard/lecture method of

instruction.

The findings of the current research study are similar to Sugahara and Boland

(2006) and Burke and James (2008) findings. Sugahara and Boland (2006) performed

their research with accounting students. They looked at the effect of technological

instruction, mainly PowerPoint, on academic achievement. The students who expressed a

preference for the technological methods of learning scored significantly lower on their

assessments than the students who preferred the traditional method of instruction. Burke

and James (2005) also performed their study with accounting students. Their research

focused on students’ perceptions of the use of PowerPoint. They found that the students

did not think that the use of this method of technology was effective for teaching

accounting. Similar to Sugahara and Boland (2006), they found that the students who

received the technological instruction had lower test scores than the students who

received traditional instruction.

Presnky (2008), Tapscott (2009), and Sprenger (2010) asserted that technology

83



has changed the way students learn. Prensky (2001) and Murdock (2005) stressed that

instruction must change to meet the needs of today’s digital learners. Richardson’s (2006)

and Ferriter and Garry’s (2010) books feature methods to integrate technology in

instruction. The National School Boards Association (2007) and the International Society

for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2009) have implemented technology performance

standards for teachers and students. The school system in this research study has

allocated funds to implement 21st century classrooms in order to increase technology in

education.

CompassLearning, the creators of the Odyssey Math software program, asserted

that using their program improves students’ math academic achievement. After

performing a review of the literature, the researcher did not agree with the claims of these

authors. The current research did not demonstrate that technological methods of

instruction increase student academic achievement. The researcher believes that

technology must be integrated into instruction, but it is essential that researchers discover

the instructional methods that do positively impact student learning.

Wijekumar et al. (2009) performed their study with fourth grade math students.

They studied the effect of the Odyssey Math web-based instructional program compared

to traditional methods of instruction on student academic achievement. Similarly, the

current research study was performed with fifth grade math students who also received

web-based technological instruction compared to the whiteboard/lecture method of

instruction. Both studies found that the web-based technological instruction did not

increase math students’ academic achievement. The results of Wijekumar et al.’s study

tied to the researcher’s expectations for her research study as consistent with the review

of literature.

84



Research Question 2

Similar to the review of literature, the results of this research study found there

was not a statistically significant difference in the fifth grade students’ mean 2011

Science CRCT scores when employing the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction

compared to the technological methods of instruction. For the science classes, the control

group scored marginally higher with a 2.28% difference in the mean 2011 Science CRCT

scores shown in Table 4. The experimental group received the technological method of

instruction including Web 2.0 technology.

Prior to the study, the researcher’s expectations were the same for research

questions one and two. Through the review of the literature, the researcher determined

that neither of the two instructional methods would significantly impact student academic

achievement as measured by the 2011 Math CRCT and 2011 Science CRCT scores. As

Koeber (2005) and Clark (2008) determined, the researcher believed that most students

prefer technological instruction. When the researcher was a classroom teacher, she

observed the positive impact of incorporating technology into instruction. She did so

when technology resources were limited and technological instruction was an untapped

area for instruction. The teacher in this study shared that when he commenced the

whiteboard/lecture method of instruction the students originally responded positively to

the novelty of the instructional method. He stated that after a few weeks the novelty had

worn off. By the end of the study, the teacher realized that the results of the study would

not match his expectations.

The findings from the current research study are similar to Hansen and Williams

(2008) and Ricer, Filak, and Short (2005) research studies’ results. Hansen and Williams

(2008) performed a study comparing whiteboard/lecture instruction to technological

85



instruction. The authors found their findings did not meet their expectations. They

expected the students who received technological instruction to outperform those that

received traditional instruction. There was not a significant difference between the two

classes. On one assessment, the traditional class scored higher and on another assessment

the technological class scored higher. There was not a clear delineation between the two

classes. The students who received technological instruction indicated that they enjoyed

their method of instruction more than the traditional class. Ricer, Filak, and Short (2005)

performed their study in the field of science with medical students. They compared

technological instruction with traditional instruction. Similar to this research study, the

authors did not find a statistically significant difference between the assessment scores of

the groups who received technological instruction and those that received traditional

instruction.

Yu et al.’s (2010) findings tied to results of this research study. The researchers

performed their study with seventh grade science students while this study’s participants

were fifth grade science students. Both studies compared the effects of web-based

technological instruction and traditional methods of instruction on student academic

achievement. In almost all areas as with the results of this study, Yu, et al. did not find

that technological instruction increased science students’ academic achievement. Yu et al.

did find that after five months the students who received technological instruction

displayed increased retention compared to their counterparts who received traditional

instruction. Yu et al.’s findings concerning retention tie to Wiley et al. (2009) and Eysink

et al.’s (2009) results. These researchers have found that it is essential to cultivate the

aspects of technological instruction that do influence student academic achievement.

Technological instruction can be effective and increase learning. Educators need

86



instruction to learn how to integrate technology. Wiley et al. (2009) determined that

students need instruction and guidance as to how to use and evaluate the Internet to

increase learning. The researchers found that students who received proper instruction on

how to disseminate information from the Internet scored higher on assessments than

those who did not receive the instruction. Only then will technological instruction be able

to correlate to increased academic achievement.

The findings of Yu et al. (2010), Wiley et al. (2009), and Eysink et al. (2009) tie

to the conceptual framework of the constructivist theory of learning. These researchers

found that when the students were engaged in constructing the information they

experienced success and increased retention of the material. Bruner, Dewey, Piaget, and

Vygotsky were advocates of the constructive learning theory. Constructivism is when

students actively participate in their learning and develop new information and

knowledge from their prior experiences. In line with the constructive learning theory, the

students in these studies learned methods to research and attain information on the

Internet. They were permitted the freedom to explore the concepts and new material in a

manner and pace to their choosing. The results of these studies did find that learning and

achievement was successful when using technology.

Implications

The results of the current research study highlight the importance of sound

empirical data to support educational initiatives. There is a call to implement

technological instruction in education. There is a movement to provide technology in

every classroom. In an effort to combat the cost of providing technology in every

classroom, school systems are allowing and encouraging students to bring their own

technology to school. What is missing from these initiatives is the empirical data

87



demonstrating that technology increases student academic achievement.

Educator professional development has to be at the forefront of the technological

initiatives. Just because you equip a classroom with a 21st Century Classroom Learning

Environment does not mean that 21st Century learning will take place. Putting

technological equipment in a classroom without providing teacher training makes the

equipment as useful and a slate tablet and piece of chalk. Educators need to learn how to

provide meaningful instruction using technology.

The teacher in the current research study did implement technology in instruction

correctly, yet the results of this study did not find a statistically significant difference

between the two instructional methodologies. The teacher in the study has been

nominated as the Teacher of Year for the present school year. He is an excellent teacher;

he made sure his students achieved regardless of the instructional methodology. At the

commencement of the study, he believed that the academic achievement of the

experimental group would far surpass the academic achievement of the control group.

Yu et al. (2010), Wiley et al. (2009), and Eysink et al.’s (2009) have found ways

to make technological instruction meaningful and to improve academic achievement.

Technology cannot be thrown at the teachers or the students. For significant learning to

take place instruction must be tied to the empirical data. The students in our classrooms

will never know a world without technology. It is educators’ responsibility to provide

meaningful technological instruction and endow our students with the skills to be

successful outside of school.

88



Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

The researcher made a few assumptions for this study. The researcher assumed

the demographic data had been reported accurately. The school system supplied the

demographic data for the research study. The researcher also assumed the teacher was

consistent in employing instructional strategies with both the experimental and control

groups. The researcher assumed the 2010 and 2011Georgia Math and Science Criterion

Referenced Competency Tests were reliable and valid. The Georgia Department of

Education reported that the Criterion Referenced Competency Tests are valid and

reliable instruments (2010, p. 6).

Limitations

There were several limitations identified for this study. One limitation of this

study was its the small sample size. While this study had 51 participants, 60 participants

would have been ideal. The independent t-test was utilized after graphing the data which

demonstrated that the scores were within the parameters for a normal distribution. The

research study was performed in the county where the researcher worked. The school

system in the study did not have class sizes of 30 or more students, especially in an

elementary school. The teacher in the study was willing to provide instruction to match

the parameters of the research study. The teacher was an avid technology user who

embraced the study and did not require training for the experimental instructional

methods.

A second limitation of this research study was the results of the investigation

cannot be generalized beyond the population of this study or similar populations. The

fifth grade students in the study were from a suburban public school district in the

89



southeast, 30 miles from a metropolitan city. The school district had 22,073 students from

pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The male to female population was close with

10,878 females and 11,995 males. The ethnic/racial breakdown for the student population

in the district was as follows: 4.4% Asian students, 23.8% African-American students,

6.2% Hispanic students, 0.2% Native American students, 1.5% multiracial students, and

62% White students. In the district, 13.8% of the students received free or reduced

lunches the same percentage of students that have been identified as gifted.

The active involvement of the parents and community was another reason this

research study cannot be generalized beyond the population of this study or to similar

populations. The school in this research study received tremendous parental and

community support. The parents are educated and have high expectations for academic

achievement for their children. Zoom Prospector reported in 2011 that 41.50% of the

county’s population, where the research study was performed, has earned a bachelor’s

degree or higher.

A further limitation of the study was that the measurement for student academic

achievement was from the 2010 and 2011 Math Criterion Referenced Competency Tests

(CRCT) and the 2010 and 2011 Science Criterion Referenced Competency Tests. The

CRCT are designed to align with the Georgia Performance Standards designed by the

Georgia Department of Education. Therefore, the results of this study may not be

generalized outside the State of Georgia.

An additional limitation was that the study was designed to determine a

relationship between methods of instruction and student academic achievement as

measured by the 2011 Math CRCT and 2011 Science CRCT. Therefore, the study did not

determine causality.

90



Selection bias can be a threat to the internal validity of the test because the

school employed non-random assignment of students into “equivalent” groups. The two

comparison groups were of approximately equal “dimensions.” The random assignment

of the treatment groups did mitigate some of the placement bias. The study was designed

to determine if a relationship existed between methods of instruction and student

academic achievement. The research study was performed only in the subject areas of

math and science.

The maturation of the participants from the pre-test to the post-test was a

limitation of the research study. Biological and psychological changes most likely

occurred in the students from the end of the school year in 2010 when they took the pre-

test to the next year when the 2011 Math and Science CRCTs were administered.

Students could have performed better on the 2011 Math and Science CRCTs from

various factors affecting their maturation.

The final limitation was that the race, gender, retention, or socio-economic status

of the students was not identified in this research study. These factors could all possibly

influence the results of the study.

Recommendations from the Limitations

To reinforce this study’s findings, the study should be conducted at a school with

analogous demographics to see if the results would reveal similar results. The school in

the study received strong parental and community support. It would be beneficial to

replicate the study in a similar school setting. It would also be valuable to perform the

study with comparable communities in an urban as well a rural setting.

The race, gender, retention, or socio-economic status of the students was not

identified in this research study. Recommendations for future research would be to

91



replicate the study with school populations of diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic

status than the population of the study. The study should be replicated in a school where

true randomization of students exists. The study could also be replicated in other

academic subject areas.

The Criterion Referenced Competency Tests align with the Georgia Performance

Standards. So it would be good to replicate the study in other school systems in the State

of Georgia. However, Georgia’s standards do align with the national standards;

consequently this study could be replicated in other states.

Recommendations for Further Research

There was a call for increased technology and technological instruction in the

classroom. Yet, the literature review and this research study did not find that

technological instruction consistently correlates to increased academic achievement. The

students in this research study were in a technologically equipped classroom and received

technological instruction that included using Web 2.0 tools. Future studies need to

identify specific aspects of technological instruction and their effect on academic

achievement. A possible study could be to compare the impact of the available Web 2.0

tools and their affect on academic achievement.

Today’s learners are growing up in a digital age. They are comfortable with

technology. D’Angelo and Wooley (2007), Hansen and Williams (2008), Koeber (2005),

and Bartsch and Cobern’s (2003), research determined that students prefer technological

instruction over a lecture method of instruction even though the use of technology did not

increase student academic achievement. Much of the research concerning students’

preferences deals with the use of PowerPoint. Future research studies need to investigate

students’ preferences using Web 2.0 technology and its impact on academic achievement.

92



Research concerning educational technology needs to be performed in the areas of

socioeconomic status, cultural, ethnic background, and gender. Research needs to address

the digital native premise as well as the technology used for instruction.

Conclusion

To meet the needs of the generation of technologically savvy learners, many

educators, authors, and researchers believed that technology must be an essential part of

education. Like many school systems across the country, the county where the study was

conducted has completed implementing the 21st century technology in every classroom in

the school system. All classrooms have been equipped with a DLP projector, screen,

speakers, voice amplification, Pixie Wall Controller, and Mobi Interactive Pad, providing

a world of information available at the touch of a finger on the Internet and other media

(Cleary, 2009). What does that mean? If technology is provided, will technological

instruction take place? It is a start, and it is needed for technology instruction to occur.

Yet, teachers must receive technological instruction training in order to create an

effective 21st century classroom. School systems are making vast investments to provide

technology in every classroom. School systems must be careful not to mandate the use of

technological instruction without the research to support their directives.

The review of literature demonstrated that technological instruction did not

correlate to increased academic achievement. This research study found that no

statistically significant difference existed between the use of the whiteboard/lecture

instruction and technological methods of instruction. Do educators know how to develop

a meaningful lesson that integrates technology? The teacher in this study embraced

technology and integrated it into instruction. However, the results of the study determined

that neither the whiteboard/lecture method of instruction nor the technological method of

93



instruction affected student academic achievement. D’Angelo and Wooley (2007),

Hansen and Williams (2008), and Koeber’s (2005) research found that students prefer the

use of technology in education. Educators need to continue to strive to find ways to

meaningfully tie technology to instruction.

Technology is the future; it is essential that we find ways to connect instruction to

meet the needs and future of today’s digital learners. Researchers must continue to

discover the best methods to improve instruction. The bottom line is that regardless of the

technology available there is no substitute for a well prepared, engaging and charismatic

instructor.

94



REFERENCES

Agnello, M. F., White, D., & Fryer, W. (2006). Toward twenty-first century global

citizenship: A teacher education curriculum. Social Studies Research and

Practice, 1(3). Retrieved from www.socstrp.org.

Apperson, J., Laws, E., & Scepansky. J. (2004). The impact of presentation graphics on

students’ experience in the classroom. Computers & Education, 47, 116-126. doi:

10.1016/j

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2001).

Retrieved from: http://www.aect.org/standards/knowledgebase.html

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2001).

[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/default.asp

Bartsch, R., & Cobern, K. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures.

Computers & Education, 41, 77-87. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical

review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-

786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793

Biladeau, S. (2009). Technology and diversity: Perception of Idaho’s “digital natives”.

Teacher Librarian, 36(3), 20-21. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

BrainPop. (2011). BrainPop Educators. Retrieved from http://www.brainpop.com/

educators/home/

Burke, L. A. & James, K. E. (2008). PowerPoint – based lectures in business education:

An empirical investigation of student – perceived novelty and effectiveness.

95



Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 277-296. Retrieved from Ebscohost

database.

Cilesiz, S. (2009). Educational computer use in leisure contexts: A phenomenological

study of adolescents’ experiences at Internet Cafes. American Educational

Research Journal, 46, 232-274. doi: 10.3102/0002831208323938.

Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining students’ interest in university

lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39-44. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Cleary, C. (2009). 21st century learning environment installation process. [PowerPoint

slides]. Retrieved from www.fcboe.org

Cramer, K. M., Collins, K., Snider, D., & Fawcett’s, G. (2007). The virtual lecture hall:

utilization, effectiveness and student perceptions. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 38, 106-115. doi: 10.1111

Crowe, A. (2004). Teaching by example: Integrating technology into Social Studies

education courses. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 20,

159-165. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0112-6;

D’Angelo, J. M. & Wooley, S. A. (2007). Technology in the classroom: Friend or foe.

Education, 127(4), 462-471. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Davis, M. (2008). Classroom connections: Finding appropriate educational uses.

Education Week Digital Directions: Trends and Advice for k-12 Technology

Leaders, 2(Summer/Spring), 18-19. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/

dd/articles/2008/06/09/01networks_side.h02.html.

Deal, W. F., III. (2005).Resources in technology. Technology Teacher, 64(8), 12-16.

Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Definition of e-Learning. About E-Learning, 2007-2010. Retrieved from http://www./

96



about-elearning.com/definition-of-e-learning.html

Eysink, T., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P.

(2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis

across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4),

1107-1149. doi: 10.3102/0002831209340235.

Ferriter, W. & Garry, A. (2010). Teaching the iGeneration. Bloomington: Solution Tree

Press.

Georgia Department of Education. (2011). Criterion referenced competency test

(CRCT). An Assessment & Accountability Brief: Validity and Reliability for the

2010 Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests. Received via e-mail from the

Georgia Department of Education.

Georgia Department of Education. (2011). Georgia performance standards (GPS).

Retrieved from https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Pages/

BrowseStandards/BrowseGPS.aspx

Gutek, G. (2005). Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson.

Hansen, C. & Williams, M. (2008). Comparison of cross-cultural course changes: From

traditional lecture course to contemporary course with biblio-learning, video-

learning and experimental exercise. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(3),

197-206. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Hare, J. (Ed.). (2010). Powerful quotes for teachers. Teaching Community: Where

Teachers Meet and Learn. Retrieved from http://theapple.monster.com/

benefits/articles/8742-powerful-quotes-for-teachers-printer-friendly-version.

Instructional Technology. (2010). Wikipedia, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/

97



wiki/Instructional technology

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). National education

technology standards. Retrieved from www.iste.org.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2010). The ISTE NETS and

performance indicators for students (NETS-S). Retrieved from http://www.iste.

org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx

International Society for Technology in Education. (2010). The ISTE NETS and

performance indicators for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.

org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx

Jing, Lei (2009). Digital natives as pre-service teachers: What technology preparation is

needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 25(3), 87-97. Retrieved

from Ebscohost database.

Jukes, I., & Dosaj, A. (2004). Understanding digital kids: Teachings & learning in the

new digital landscape. The InfoSavvy Group ©. Retrieved from:

http://www.mendeley.com/research/understanding-digital-kids-dks-teaching-

learning-new-digital/

Kennedy, G., Judd, R., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year

students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122. Retrieved from

Ebscohost database.

Koeber, C. (2005). Introducing multimedia presentations and a course website to an

introductory sociology course: How technology affects student perceptions of

teaching effectiveness. Teaching Sociology, 33(3), 285-300. Retrieved from

98



Ebscohost.

Kvavik, R. B., Caruso, J. B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR study of students and

information technology 2004: Convenience, connection, and control. Boulder,

CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.

educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0405/rs/ers0405w.pdf

Leonard, A., Slykhuis, D., & Wiebe, E. (2007). Evaluating gender differences of attitudes

and perceptions toward PowerPoint for preservice science teachers. Eurasia

Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 297-304.

Retrieved from Google Scholar.

Lu, Y., & Gordon, C. (2009). Reading takes you places: A study of a web-based summer

reading program. American Association of School Librarians, 10. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/

volume10/ALA_print_layout_1_445913_445913.cfm

Millennial. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.

php?term=millennials

Murdoch, R. (2005, April 13). Speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American Society of

Newspaper Editors. American Society of Newspaper Editors. Retrieved from

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html

National School Boards Association. (July 2007). Creating and connecting: Research

and guideline on online social-and educational-networking. Retrieved from

http://www.nsba.org/Services/TLN/BenefitsofMembership/Publications/Creating-

and-Connecting.pdf

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step guide to data analysis using

SPSS. New York: McGraw-Hill.

99



Parette, H., Hourcade, J., Boeckmann, N., & Blum, C. (2008). Using Microsoft

PowerPoint TM to support emergent literacy skill development for young children

at-risk or who have disabilities. Early Childhood Education, 36. 233-239. doi:

10.1007/s10643-008-0275-y;

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.

php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120.

PC Digital Magazine. (2011). Web 1.0. Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/

encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=Web+10&i=57650,00.asp.

PC Digital Magazine. (2011). Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/

encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=Web+10&i=57650,00.asp.

Peck, R., Olsen, C., and Devore, J. (2010). Introduction to statistics & data analysis.

Australia: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, (5), 2-4.

Presnky, M. (2008, November - December). The role of technology in teaching and the

classroom. Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.

com/writing/

Pucel, D., & Stertz, T. (2005). Effectiveness of and student satisfaction with web-based

compared to traditional in-service teacher education courses. Journal of Industrial

Teacher Education, 42(1), 7-23. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Ricer, R. E., Filak, A. T., & Short, J. (2005). Does a high tech (computerized, animated,

PowerPoint) presentation increase retention of material compared to a low tech

(black on clear overheads) presentation? Teaching & Learning in Medicine, 17,

107-111. doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_3

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for

100



classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

SearchNetworking.com. (2011). Retrieved from http://searchnetworking.techtarget.

com/definition/whiteboard.

Slykhuis, D., Wiebe, E., & Len, A. (2005). Eye-tracking students’ attention to

PowerPoint photographs in a science education setting. Journal of Science

Education and Technology, 14, 509-520. doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-0225-z

Sprenger, M. (2010). Brain-based teaching: In the digital age. Alexandra: ASCD.

Sugahara, S. & G. Boland. (2006). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the

accounting classroom. Accounting Education, 15(4), 391-403. Retrieved from

Ebscohost database.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Teachnology. (2010). Bruner’s theory on constructivism. Retrieved from http://www.

teach-nology.com/currenttrends/constructivism/bruner/

TechTerms.com. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.techterms.com/definition/

powerpoint

TS & Logistics Group. (2011). E-Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.tslgafrica.com/

index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:what-is-e-learning&

catid=36:e-learning&Itemid=41

University of Southern California (2010). Getting started with SPSS. Information

Technology Services. Retrieved Feb, 18, 2010, from

http://www.usc.edu/its/stats/spss/.

Urban Dictionary. (1999-2011). Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.

com/define.php?term=millennials

101



Ward, R. Moule, P, & Lockyer, L. (2009). Adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in

education for health professionals in the UK: Where are we and why? Electronic

Journal of e-Learning, 7(2), 165-172. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Wijekumar, K., Hitchcock, J., Turner, H., Lei, P., and Peck, K. (2009). A multisite cluster

randomized trial of the effects of CompassLearning Odyssey math on the math

achievement of selected grade 4 students in the mid-Atlantic region. Final Report.

NCEE 2009-4069. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance. 1-91. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez, C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009).

Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks.

American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060-1106). doi: 103102/

000283120933183.

Xiaoqing Guo, R., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants:

An analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 38, 235-254. doi: 10.2190/EC.38.3.a

Yates, D., Moore, D., & Starnes, D. (2008). The practice of statistics. New York: W.H.

Freeman and Company.

Yu, W., She, H., and Lee, Y. (2010). The effects of web-based/non-web-based problem-

solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem-solving

ability and biology achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching

International. 47(2), 187-199. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Zoom Prospector. (2011). GIS Planning Inc. Fayette County, Georgia demographics

Retrieved from http://www.zoomprospector.com/communitydetail.aspx?id=1681.

102



103
