1. Sara Ventrella Bowling Green State University Assessing the Impact of Mathematics Technology Intervention Upon Student Achievement

2. Problem Statement According to U.S. Department of Education's 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (May 2002), only 42% of new teachers have stated they felt "well prepared" or "very well prepared" when it came to using and incorporating computers in the classroom. There are a variety of reasons for lack of use: physical setting availability conditions of equipment received lack of training lack of interest socio-economic status of those inthe classroom (Kurt & Ciftci, 2012) teacher resistance (Hicks, 2011) teacher-student ratio student-computer ratio 3. Reasons to Support Technology Integration Technology doesn't just effect teachers, but students, too (Hicks, 2011): Increases and improves student attitudes Attention span of students increases Academic scores have shown improvement through a variety of studies Confidence is boosted 4. Purpose of Study To find out the efficacy of technology integration in the elementary school classroom environment. Student academic outcomes were examined over a period of 6 weeks, which allowed for significant time for student data to be collected. 5. Research Questions Question 1: Do students that receive extra technological intervention produce higher data scores than those who do not receive extra intervention? Question 2: In what ways does technology impact student academic achievement across all subgroups of achievement (low, medium, and high)? 6. Variables 7. Participants 3rd grade students at a private, urban school in Southern Alabama Gender distribution for my specific group was one boy for every two girls, with a total of 2 boys and 4 girls Sampling method of convenience was used for this study, as the teachers knew of students' academic levels. 8. Procedures Anonymous survey was given at the beginning and end of the study. Six short answer and 12 fill in the blank with regards to mathematics concepts in which participants indicated "like" or "dislike. Concepts include: time, money, addition, multiplication, division, fractions, and so on. Level 9 of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills was complete as a post-test. Utilized the website IXL to help develop mathematics skills 9. Results - Student Grade Level Growth with Mathematics Technology Integration 10. Results - Skill Mastery by Subgroups Treatment Group 11. Results - Skill Mastery by Subgroups Control Group 12. Conclusions Technology integration impacts any student, regardless of their skills. Those that worked with me showed more growth and improvement in academics and understanding of mathematics overall when compared with those who did not receive integration, even though they improved, too. Integration of technology may help boost those districts that are struggling to improve student academic and growth in a typical classroom environment 13. Limitations External validity: Study participants represented a very non-diverse population of a sample from one school in one district Access to technology may be limited compared to other samples that receive time with technology more often Internal validity: Teaching styles may have been varied for the sample Their schedules between the two third grade classes could be different, meaning one group of students is on one topic while the other has moved on or is still behind. 14. Recommendations All teachers have access to at least one technological tool in their classroom Utilize this tool when necessary, although do not rely on it as the sole means of education or teaching Complete the study in the future with a larger sample Additional studies need to be completed to help identify whether the effects of technology can support additional grade levels 15. Research Reflections Personal thoughts on research: Difficult Enjoyed getting to know my students Hard to gather data when you're not specifically attached to the school Six weeks is not long enough to do a research project Great mathematics technology is hard to come across that is also entertaining to students 16. References Gruber, K. J., Wiley, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., & Burian- Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and bureau of indian affairs elementary and secondary schools. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002313 Hicks, S. (2011). Technology in today's classroom: are you a tech-savvy teacher?. Clearing House, 84(5), 188-191. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2008) What is research design? The context of design. New York University, Spring 2008. 17. References Kurt, S., & Ciftci, M. (2012). Barriers to teachers' use of technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(3), 225-238. PBS LearningMedia. (2013). PBS survey finds teachers are embracing digital resources to propel student learning [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2013/teacher-tech-survey/ University of Iowa College of Education Iowa Testing Programs (2013). Test descriptions, Levels 9-14. Retrieved from https://itp.education.uiowa.edu/ia/TestDescriptions.aspx Winebrenner, S. (1996). Teaching kids with learning difficulties in the regular classroom: Strategies and techniques every teacher can use to challenge and motivate struggling students. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing Inc.