how does technology influence student learning? · pdf file48 learning & leading with...

Learning & Lead ing w ith Technology Volume 29 Number 846

Subject: Research on academicperformance and technology

Audience: Teachers, technologycoordinators, library/media special-ists, teacher educators

Grade Level: K–12 (Ages 5–18)

Technology: All

Standards: NETS•T II; NETS•A I(www.iste.org/standards)

Supplement: www.iste.org/L&L

How Does TechnologyInfluence Student Learning?This month’s Research Windows highlightsresearch findings for frequently askedquestions regarding technology’seffects on student learningas determined by theCenter for AppliedResearch inEducationalTechnology(CARET).

By John Cradler, MaryMcNabb, Molly Freeman,and Richard Burchett

Research Windows


Copyright © ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 1.800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 1.541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected]. All rights reserved.

May 2002 Learning & Lead ing w ith Technology 47

Research Windows

Evidence is mounting to supporttechnology advocates’ claimsthat 21st-century information

and communication tools as well asmore traditional computer-assistedinstructional applications can positive-ly influence student learning processesand outcomes. The Center for Appl-ied Research in Educational Technol-ogy (CARET) has gathered compellingresearch and evaluation findings to an-swer frequently asked questions abouthow technology influences studentachievement and academic perfor-mance in relation to three primary cur-ricular goals:

1. Achievement in content arealearning

2. Higher-order thinking and problem-solving skill development

3. Workforce preparation

The research findings also emphasizethe importance of using technologyin conjunction with collaborative learn-ing methods and leadership aimed attechnology planning for school im-provement purposes. For access toadditional research findings applicableto collaboration, planning, procure-ment, and implementation of technol-ogy in schools, read the supplementonline at www.iste.org/L&L and visitthe CARET Web site at http://caret.iste.org.

Content Area AchievementFirst and foremost, research remindsus that technology generally improvesperformance when the application di-rectly supports the curriculum stan-dards being assessed. In other words,making standards and learning objec-tives explicit to the students is part ofeffective technology implementation.Technology integration activities oftenrequire teachers and curriculum plan-ners to revisit curricular standards asthey select technology applications.A review of studies conducted by theCEO Forum (2001) emphasizes:“technology can have the greatestimpact when integrated into the cur-riculum to achieve clear, measurableeducational objectives.”

A recent study illustrates how align-ment between content-area learningstandards and carefully selected tech-nology uses can significantly increasetest scores. In an eight-year longitudinalstudy of SAT-I performance at NewHampshire’s Brewster Academy (Bain& Ross, 1999), students participatingin the technology-integrated school-reform efforts (School Design Model)demonstrated average increases of 94points in combined SAT I performanceover students who participated in thetraditional school experience. The re-form efforts included a pioneer laptopprogram, where all students and facultycarry portable computers and haveready access to a campus network.Along with technology implementa-tion, Brewster’s extensive school reformefforts involved “rethinking the way weteach, how we build curriculum, andthe way we support and evaluate fac-ulty” (Bain & Smith, 2000, p. 152).

A West Virginia study shows anincrease in test scores resulting fromintegrating curriculum objectives forbasic skills development in reading andmathematics with instructional soft-ware (Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker, &

Kottkamp, 1999). This curriculum wasreinforced with teacher instruction andstudent achievement tests. Gains in stu-dent test scores on the SAT-9 (for 950fifth graders in 18 schools) appearedattributable to the alignment of the tar-geted curriculum standards with thesoftware, teacher instruction, and tests.

Numerous studies document stu-dent understanding of mathematicsconcepts from using computer-basedand -assisted software. Logo program-ming, computer-assisted instruction(CAI) microworlds, and algebra andgeometry software are among thoseeffective in facilitating mathematicsachievement for elementary, middle,and high school students when teach-ers are skilled in guiding student activi-ties (Hillel, Kieran, & Gurtner, 1989;McCoy, 1996; Simmons & Cope,1990, 1993).

In English language arts and socialstudies, teachers report observing sig-nificant change in student skills andknowledge acquired after their students’first multimedia project. After studentcompletion of the first multimediaproject, teachers reported increasedstudent knowledge in:

• research skills,• ability to apply learning

to real-world situations,• organizational skills, and• interest in the content (Cradler

& Cradler, 1999).

Higher-Order Skills DevelopmentHigher-order thinking and problem-solving skills (e.g., information re-search, comparing and contrasting,synthesizing, analyzing, and evaluating)enable learners to apply their contentknowledge in a variety of ways leadingto innovation and deeper understand-ing of content domains. Though sometechnology applications are designedfor use in specific content areas, educa-




tors have also found valuable thinkingtools among the technology applicationsavailable for educational purposes. Re-search and evaluation shows that tech-nology tools for constructing artifactsand electronic information and com-munication resources support the de-velopment of higher-order thinkingskills. The findings hold true when stu-dents are taught to apply the processesof problem solving and then are al-lowed opportunities to apply technol-ogy tools to develop solutions.

Powerful technologies are now avail-able to significantly augment the skillsnecessary to convert data into informa-tion and transform information intoknowledge. For example, interactivevideo programs have been demon-strated to increase problem-solvingskills. Students across nine states whoused Jasper video software as a center-piece for mathematics instruction forthree to four weeks were comparedwith students who did not. The com-parative research demonstrated that thestudents in classrooms who used theJasper video programs were better ableto complete complex problem-solvingtasks (Cognition and TechnologyGroup, 1992).

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, anintelligent-tutor software program,as part of the regular curriculum forninth-grade algebra, supports a curricu-lum focusing on mathematical analysisof real-world situations and the use ofcomputational tools. “On average, the470 students in the experimental classesusing the software outperformed stu-dents in comparison classes by 15% onstandardized tests and 100% on teststargeting the curriculum-focused objec-tives” (Koedinger, Anderson, Hadley, &Mark, 1999, p. 1). It is important to

note, however, that students may ma-nipulate simulation and presentationsoftware to create a visual artifact with-out really understanding or applyingsound conceptual thinking. The role ofteachers is paramount in guiding thedevelopment of students’ higher-orderthinking skills during learning activitiesinvolving technology tools.

In a landmark study analyzing a na-tional database of student test scores,Wenglinsky (1998) determined thattechnology can have a positive effect onstudents’ mathematics scores. His studyused data of fourth- and eighth-gradestudents who took the math section ofthe 1996 National Assessment of Edu-cational Progress (NAEP). That NAEPincluded questions about how comput-ers are used in mathematics instruction.After adjusting for class size, teacherqualifications, and socioeconomics,Wenglinsky found that technology hadmore of an impact in middle schoolsthan it did in elementary schools(Valdez et al., 1999). In eighth grade,where computers were used for simula-tions and applications to enhancehigher-order thinking skills, the stu-dents performed better on the NAEPthan did students whose teachers usedthe technology for drill and practice.“He found that fourth-grade studentswho used computers primarily for‘math/learning games’ scored higherthan students who did not. … fourthgraders did not show differences in testscore gains for either simulations andapplications or drill and practice”(Valdez et al. 1999, p. 24).

Another study of 22 fourth- andsixth-grade classes in seven urbanschool districts involved 66 of the par-ticipating students in a civil rights cur-riculum using online communication

and the Internet. The control group of38 students did use the computer butdid not use the online resources withthe curriculum. Center for AppliedSpecial Technology (CAST) researchersassessed the effect of Internet use onstudent performance by looking at thebenefits it had on student projects. Ac-cording to the CAST (1996) research-ers, “students with access to ScholasticNetwork and the Internet producedbetter projects than students withoutonline access.” Of the nine measures ofperformance, the online users receivedsignificantly higher scores relative to:

• presenting their work,• stating a civil rights issue,• presenting a full picture (who, what,

when, where, why, how),• bringing together different points of

view, and• producing a complete project

(CAST, Table 2).

Research and evaluation shows thattechnology can enable the developmentof critical thinking skills when studentsuse technology presentation and com-munication tools to present, publish,and share results of projects. TheCAST study also found that whenstudents used the Internet to researchtopics, share information, and completea final project within the context of asemi-structured lesson, they becameindependent, critical thinkers (Coley,Cradler, & Engel, 1997).

Using technology tools to buildthinking skills is not just for the bestand brightest students. The Higher Or-der Thinking Skills (HOTS) pull-outprogram, developed in the early 1980sto build the thinking skills of students,combined technology with drama andSocratic dialogue. Through this combi-

Research Windows

Research and evaluation shows that technology toolsfor constructing artifacts and electronic information andcommunication resources support the development ofhigher-order thinking skills.



nation, disadvantaged students inGrades 4–7 achieved twice the nationalaverage gains on reading and math testscores. Ten to 15% of the students alsoachieved honor roll status in 1994, sug-gesting a transfer of the students’ cogni-tive development to learning specificcontent. The students who used HOTSalso increased performance on measuresof reading comprehension, metacog-nition, writing, components of IQ,transfer to novel tasks, and gradepoint average (Coley et al., 1997;Pogrow, 1996).

Workforce PreparationPreparing students for the workforce isa third area where technology plays apivotal role in helping school commu-nities reach their educational goals. Re-search shows that when students learnto use and apply applications used inthe world of work, such as word proces-sors, spreadsheets, computer-aideddrawing, Web site development pro-grams, and the Internet, they acquiresome of the prerequisite skills forworkforce preparedness. When contentand problem-solving strategies meet ac-cepted education standards, technologyincreases mastery of vocational andworkforce skills and helps prepare stu-dents for work (Cradler, 1994).

Integration of technology with the-matic and interdisciplinary projects canenhance career preparation. A study offour health career programs in Califor-nia (Stern & Rahn, 1995) demon-strated the effectiveness of work-basedlearning models such as Tech Prep andcareer academies that integrate students’work experience with academic subjectssuch as math, English, science, and so-cial studies. These programs allow highschool students to gain valuable knowl-

edge about how to conduct themselvesin actual workplace environments. Re-flection is an essential part of thesework-based learning programs whereteachers integrate a health care themeinto academic assignments or interdis-ciplinary projects. For example, themath teacher in one program encour-ages students to analyze forces andangles in physical therapy, design abuilding to house a health clinic,and determine the amount of moneya medical assistant must save in fiveyears to pay for college tuition.

Technology can be useful in linkingwork experiences with academic sub-jects. In a nationwide review of school-to-work programs, Olson (1998) foundprograms where students were learningthe new basics or basics plus skills. Theseskills include the ability to use technol-ogy to communicate ideas and infor-mation orally, as well as in writing. Thenew basics also include working ingroups, solving problems when answersaren’t always self-evident, understand-ing how systems work, and collecting,analyzing, and organizing data. In a re-port on the state of technology integra-tion in Minnesota, schools documentthe benefits of using information tech-nologies to bring the world of workinto the classroom (Johnson, 1996).

ConclusionThe research and evaluation studiescited in this article represent highlightsfrom a larger body of evidence reviewedby CARET and available online. Insum, research is providing more andmore clarity about how to use technol-ogy effectively within our school com-munities to support and enhance theacademic performance of today’s youth.Collaborative activities and formative

feedback are key components of in-structional strategies that accompanyeffective technology implementation.Leadership also is pivotal in aligningavailable technology resources with sys-temic school improvement goals. Theresearch indicates the need for under-standing the combined efforts necessaryfor technology to positively influencestudents’ academic performance. (Formore on the roles collaboration, leader-ship, and technology planning play, seethe article supplement online atwww.iste.org/L&L.)

ReferencesBain, A., & Ross, K. (1999). School reengi-neering and SAT-I performance: A case study.International Journal of Education Reform, 9(2),148–153.

Bain, A., & Smith, D. (2000). Technol-ogy enabling school reform. T.H.E. Journal,28(3), 90.

Center for Applied Special Technology.(1996). The role of online communicationsin schools: A national study [Online].Available: www.cast.org/udl/RoleofOnlineCommunicationsinSchools121.cfm.

CEO Forum. (2001). Year 4 STaR Report[Online]. Available: www.electronic-school.com/2001/09/0901ewire.html#forum.

Cognition and Technology Group atVanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as anexample of anchored instruction: Theory,program description, and assessment data.Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315.

Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. (1997).Computers and classrooms: The status of technol-ogy in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Policy Infor-mation Center, Educational Testing Service.

Cradler, J. (1994). Summary of research andevaluation findings relating to technology in edu-cation. San Mateo, CA: Educational SupportSystems.

Cradler, R., & Cradler, J. (1999). Just intime: Technology innovation challenge grant year2 evaluation report for Blackfoot School DistrictNo. 55. San Mateo, CA: Educational SupportSystems.

Research Windows

Research and evaluation shows that technology canenable the development of critical thinking skills whenstudents use technology presentation and communicationtools to present, publish, and share results of projects.

Technology continued on page 56.



Hillel, J., Kieran, C., & Gurtner, J. (1989).Solving structured geometry tasks on the com-puter: The role of feedback in generating strate-gies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 1–39.

Johnson, B. H. (1996). Minnesota com-mitted to providing technology to all students.Research/Practice [Online], 4(2). Available:http://education.umn.edu/carei/Reports/Rpractice/Summer96/committed.htm.

Koedinger, K., Anderson, J., Hadley, W.,& Mark, M. (1999). Intelligent tutoring goes toschool in the big city. [Online]. Pittsburgh, PA:Carnegie Mellon University. Available: http://act.psy.cmu.edu/awpt/AlgebraPacket/kenPaper/paper.html.

Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J.,& Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia story:Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensiveinstructional technology program. Santa Monica,CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology.

McCoy, L. P. (1996). Computer-basedmathematics learning. Journal of Research onComputing in Education, 28(4), 438–460.

Olson, L. (1998). The new basics in school-to-work. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 50–54.

Pogrow, S. (1996). Using computers andother visual technology to combine processand content. In A. Costa & R. Liebman (Eds.),When process is content: Toward renaissancelearning (pp. 98–116). Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

Simmons, M., & Cope, P., (1990). Fragileknowledge of angle in turtle geometry. Educa-tional Studies in Mathematics, 21(4), 375–382.

Simmons, M., & Cope, P. (1993). Angleand rotation: Effects of different types of feed-back on the quality of response. EducationalStudies in Mathematics, 24(2), 163–176.

Stern, D., & Rahn, M. (1995). How healthcareer academies provide work-based learning.Educational Leadership, 52(8), 37–40.

Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M.,Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., & Raack, L.(1999). Computer-based technology and learning:Evolving uses and expectations. Oak Brook, IL:North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? Therelationship between educational technology andstudent achievement in mathematics. Princeton,NJ: Policy Information Center, EducationalTesting Services.

Research Windows

John Cradler ([email protected]) is the co-directorof the CARET project and presi-dent of Educational SupportSystems. During the past 15years, he has made significantcontributions to the development

of state and federal legislation and policies relatedto educational technology. In his previous roles asdirector of technology for WestED, CCSSO, andEducational Support Systems, he has served as anadvisor and evaluator for a wide variety of state,federal, and private sector educational technologyprograms, products, and initiatives.

Mary McNabb, EdD ([email protected]),works as a consultant focusing on investigating thenature of teaching, learning, and assessment inonline cultures. Previously, she was a research scien-tist at the University of Denver Research Institute(DRI). She has also served as director of Researchand Technology for the North Central RegionalEducation Laboratory (Oak Brooks, Illinois) andwas on a national committee coordinating evalua-tion efforts for the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachersto Use Technology (PT3) Program. She served onthe leadership committee that developed ISTE’sNETS for Teachers.

Molly Freeman ([email protected]) currentlyconducts research with Educational Support Sys-tems and since 1996 has consulted with theInternet Institute of Santa Clara County Office ofEducation to design staff development for K–12teachers learning to use technology in the classroom.Her PhD is in Complex Systems and DistanceLearning from The Union Institute, and hermaster’s degree is in sociology from the Universityof California at Davis.

Richard Burchett ([email protected]) is a CARETreviewer and a research associate in ISTE’s Re-search and Evaluation Department. In 1994, heobtained his PhD in Cognitive Psychology from theUniversity of California, Riverside. He has taughtpsychology, statistics, and research methodologycourses at numerous West Coast universities. Rich-ard has served as an associate professor of psychol-ogy at the American University in Cairo (Egypt)and the American University of Sharjah (UnitedArab Emirates).

56

Technology continued from page 49.


how does technology influence student learning? · pdf file48 learning & leading with...

Documents