Rathore M.K. and Sonawat R. 2015.

Integration of technology in education and its impact

on learning of students. International Journal of Applied Home Science, 2(7&8): 235-246.

INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION AND ITS IMPACT ON

LEARNING OF STUDENTS

Manju Kanwar Rathore* and Reeta Sonawat**

PhD Scholar* and Professor**

Department of Human Development

SNDT Women’s University, Juhu Campus

Santacruz (west), Mumbai – 400049

Mobile No. 9619718849

[email protected]

Abstract

Technology is ubiquitous, touching almost every part of our lives, our communities, our homes.
Yet most schools lag far behind when it comes to integrating technology into classroom learning.
So it is quite important to conduct a review on different type of technology integration in
schools. With this intension the present study is conducted to review the literature related to
various technologies integrated in learning process of students, reasons behind the integration of
technology, outcomes of students learning based on technology integration. Different studies
supports that technology helps change the student/teacher roles and relationships: students take
responsibility for their learning outcomes, while teachers become guides and facilitators.
Technology lends itself as the multidimensional tool that assists the process of learning. There is
a growing body of evidence that technology integration positively affects student achievement
and academic performance. Research on the use and integration of technology suggests that
teachers and schools are most likely to use technology to personalize learning if (1) it supports
already existing, student-centered practices and helps to solve problems or address challenges;
(2) it is part of a systemic, organization-wide initiative to implement student-centered learning;
and (3) teachers have access to ample professional development and ongoing support.

Keywords: Technology integration, ubiquitous, learning process,multidimensional, student

centered learning.

Introduction

There is a growing consensus among education reformers that improving the preparation
of students for the 21st century, including postsecondary education and careers, requires
fundamental and systemic changes in how middle and high school education is organized (e.g.,
Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study, 2009; National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine, 2007; NCEE, 2006).
Technology is ubiquitous, touching almost every part of our lives, our communities, our
homes. Yet most schools lag far behind when it comes to integrating technology into classroom
learning. Many are just beginning to explore the true potential technology offers for teaching and
learning. Properly used, technology will help students acquire the skills they need to survive in a
complex, highly technological knowledge-based economy.
 An important thing behind the integrating technology in education is that learning should
be effective by a focus on students and their proficiency with specific competencies, and
providing them aid of technology, not by old school structures and arbitrary, age-based
benchmarks. Technology use and digital media have fundamentally transformed all aspects of
our lives, and many education reformers agree that it can and must be an important part of
current efforts to personalize education (e.g., Christensen, 2008; Collins & Halverson, 2009;
U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Wellings & Levine, 2009; Woolf, Shute, VanLehn,
Burleson, King, Suthers, Bredeweg, Luckin, Baker & Tonkin, 2010). Use of technology can help
to improve and enhance the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and learning with and about
technology is essential for students to gain the competencies to function well in a 21st century
society and workforce. Technology is intrinsically motivating to many students and also highly
customizable, it is particularly well suited to support student’s all round development in
academics, personality groom up as well as many more aspects of their life. The past, school
reform efforts driven by technology have often failed (e.g., Cuban, 2001; Zhao & Frank, 2003).
In an effort to know about effectiveness of technology integration in learning of students, this
substantial review of research has been carried out. Literature on technology integration used as
a framework for understanding various types and uses of technology to personalize learning.
This paper summarizes the findings from these reviews.
Concept of Technology Integration:
Seamless integration is when students are not only using technology daily, but have access to a
variety of tools that match the task at hand and provide them the opportunity to build a deeper
understanding of content. Willingness to embrace change is also a major requirement for
successful technology integration. Technology is continuously, and rapidly, evolving. It is an
ongoing process and demands continual learning. Definition of technology tools encompasses a
broad range of digital devices such as computers, tablets, multi-touch screens, interactive
whiteboards, mobile devices, cameras, DVD and music players, audio recorders, electronic toys,
games, e-book readers, and older analog devices still being used such as tape recorders, VCRs,
VHS tapes, record and cassette players, light tables, projectors, and microscopes etc. Technology
when it fits comfortably with the curriculum or instructional plans of teaching is an indicative of
integrated technology. Thus, technology rather than an additional layer in the classroom is
embedded within the design of the teacher’s lesson plan and the pedagogy. Thus, in this
approach, the teacher designs learning activities and students use technology to construct their
own learning. For example, the students use technology for seeking information, construct and
organize their learning and represent it through computer applications. Thus, the teacher plays a
role of a facilitator and student as a constructionist of his or her own learning. Such an approach
considers technology as a tool rather than an end itself, defines the teachers’ role as a facilitator
and designer of the learning environment, and emphasizes the student’s use of technology, and
authentic assessments and activities using technology in the classroom (Grabe and Grabe cited in
Charania, 2011).
"Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select
technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the
information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral part of
how the classroom functions -- as accessible as all other classroom tools." (National
educational technology standards for students, international society for technology in
education).
When technology is effectively integrated into the curriculum, technology tools can
extend learning in powerful ways. These tools can provide students and teachers with access to
up-to-date, primary source material, Methods of collecting/recording data, Ways to collaborate
with students, teachers, and experts around the world, Opportunities for expressing
understanding via multimedia, Learning that is relevant and assessment that is authentic,
Training for publishing and presenting their new knowledge. When technology integration is at
its best, a child or a teacher doesn't stop to think that he or she is using a technology tool, it is
second nature. Students are often more actively engaged in academics when technology tools are
a seamless part of the learning process.

Types of Technology Integration (http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-

description)
There are many ways technology can become an integral part of the learning process. Just a few
of these ways are listed below but new technology tools and ideas emerge daily.
1.Online Learning and Blended Classrooms
While K-12 online learning gains traction around the world, many teachers are also exploring
blended learning as a combination of both online and face-to-face education. Dixon (2009)
reported that online video sharing sites such as YouTube.com enable students to create and share
reflective video journals focusing on both their formal and informal learning experiences. This
study sought to determine the factors that enhance the effectiveness of reflective video journals
to increase the metacognition of adolescent students. Twelve high school students participated in
a six- session after-school reflective video journaling program. Diverse data collection methods
were used. The research revealed several factors that enhance students' metacognition including
highly structure prompts, privacy during production, and a focus on content over production
value. Factors detracting from the student reflection include student autonomy, the voluntary
nature of this study, and prompts not tied to a content area.
2.Project-Based Activities Incorporating Technology
Many of the most rigorous projects are infused with technology from start to finish with a one-
to-one laptop program. (http://bie.org)
The Buck Institute for Education (BIE) defines Project based learning (PBL) as "a systematic
teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an extended
inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products
and tasks."

According to the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory benefits of project-based

instruction include:

 Preparing learners for the workplace by exposing them to competencies such as

collaboration, project planning, decision making, and time management
 Teachers often see increased motivation through higher levels of attendance, participation,
and homework
 Learners have greater collaborative opportunities to construct knowledge
 Increases in social and communication skills
 Learners are able to see connections between disciplines
 Increased problem-solving skills
 Increased learner self-esteem
 Learners use individual learning strengths and diverse approaches to learning
 Provides real-world experiences to learn and use technology.
(http://educationnorthwest.org/)
3.Game-Based Learning and Assessment
There has been a lot of buzz about the benefits of incorporating simulations and game-based
learning activities into classroom instruction. Dominguez et al. (2013) designed and built a
gamification plugin for a well-known e-learning platform and made an experiment using this
plugin in a university course, collecting quantitative and qualitative data in the process. Findings
suggest that some common beliefs about the benefits obtained when using games in education
can be challenged. Students who completed the gamified experience got better scores in practical
assignments and in overall score, but findings also suggest that these students performed poorly
on written assignments and participated less on class activities, although their initial motivation
was higher.
4.Learning with Mobile and Handheld Devices
Once widely dismissed as distractions, devices like cell phones, mp3 players, and tablet
computers are now being used as learning tools in forward-thinking schools. The pace of change
is so rapid that society is experiencing a disruption almost as significant as when there was a
shift from oral language to print literacy, and again when the printing press expanded access to
books and the printed word. The shift to new media literacies and the need for digital literacy
that encompasses both technology and media literacy will continue to shape the world in which
young children are developing and learning (Linebarger & Piotrowski 2009; Flewitt 2011;
Alper n.d.).
5.Instructional Tools like Interactive Whiteboards and Student Response Systems
In many schools, the days of green chalkboards are over. Nowadays these whiteboards are more
efficient in intimating the messages of tutors to students.
A review of education case-study findings and research literature was compiled by SMART
Technologies Inc. to help educators weigh the benefits of using interactive whiteboards in the
classroom. It includes findings from the longest running interactive whiteboard education
research program – SMARTer Kids™ Research. This concluded that the interactive whiteboard
has been incorporated into learning environments for over a decade, and an increasing flow of
research into its impact is emerging from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
From the available body of research, several themes and patterns have emerged, including the
positive effect interactive whiteboards have on student engagement, motivation, the ability to
accommodate a variety of learning styles (including special needs students) and the capacity to
enhance student understanding and review processes. Observations also indicate that designing
lessons around interactive whiteboards can help educators streamline their preparations and be
more efficient in ICT integration, thereby enhancing their overall productivity.
6.Web-Based Projects, Explorations, and Research
One of the first, and most basic, ways that teachers encouraged kids to use technology was with
online research, virtual field trips, and web quests.
Miller et al. (2004) conducted a study and central hypothesis examines whether brief
exposure to a Web adventure format containing virtual lab experiments and computer games
within an engaging story line can impact student learning. An episodic adventure
series, MedMyst focuses on infectious diseases and the microbes that cause them. In the online
adventure, the player (student) enters a futuristic world in which he or she becomes a
"reconstructor," a member of an elite team charged with preventing the spread of infectious
disease. The series consists of three "missions," each lasting approximately 30 to 40 minutes and
designed to address a limited set of learning objectives. Middle school students, classroom
teachers, scientists, and clinicians assisted the game development process. A field test involving
over 700 students from nine schools assessed the knowledge gains attributable to playing
MedMyst. Gain scores from pretest to posttest indicated that middle school students retained
important information by interacting with the online material for as little as 30 minutes per
adventure; however, gains for high school students were less persuasive, perhaps indicating a
different learning tool or content is required for this age audience.
7.Student-Created Media like Podcasts, Videos, or Slideshows
One of the central ideas of digital or media literacy is that students should be come creators and
critics, not just consumers, of media.
A large body of research indicates that the type of television content children watch is a truer
determinant of students' future academic success than the amount of time they spend watching.
The report argues, "Children's viewing of educational television has been shown to support
significant and lasting learning gains, while too much viewing of other types of programming
may be associated with a lack of academic achievement." The report describes examples drawn
from the research literature of educational video use across academic disciplines, including:
science shows (e.g., Mr. Wizard, Bill Nye the Science Guy); news and drama shows with
scientific themes; fictional and factual historical representations (e.g., BBC-produced Teacher'
Notes, PBS-produced Renaissance); documentaries for geography; films, news stories, soap
operas for writing and foreign language learning activities; and math learning shows
(e.g., Sesame Street, Square One TV, Cyberchase). To enhance the educational effectiveness of
video in the schools, educators are urged to promote active viewing and critical analysis of media
texts, assign video as homework, use segments of no more than ten to 15 minutes, and use
television programming as a bridge to public television, museums, community groups, cultural
organizations, and professional and industry associations. Broadcasters are urged to use
accompanying websites for teacher materials and to consider aligning with core curricula. The
report concludes that a long history of research clearly shows that "video is now and will
continue to be an effective, engaging, and essential tool in our nation's classrooms." Center for
Children and Technology (2004). 
8.Collaborative Online Tools like Wikis or Google Docs
Connecting with others online can be a powerful experience, both for teachers and for students.
Light and Polin (2010) conducted a study. Under that particular study twenty-two schools
were observed and over 30 educators were interviewed and observed, to document Web 2.0 and
social networking technology use in classrooms across the United States. As the paper is
descriptive, only hypotheses are offered. The paper provides a trove of Web resources, while
describing how teachers use them in K-12 classrooms. In general, interactive and asynchronous
features of Web 2.0 tools seem to extend and deepen the educational environment when they
facilitate meaningful communication among teachers, students, parents, and larger communities
toward authentic goals.
Means et al.2009. Conducted a systematic search of the research literature from 1996
through July 2008 identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts
screened these studies to find those that contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition,
measured student learning outcomes, used a rigorous research design, and provided adequate
information to calculate an effect size. As a result of this screening, 51 independent effects were
identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that, on average,
students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face
instruction. The findings suggest that the positive effects associated with blended learning should
not be attributed to the media, per se. An unexpected finding was the small number of rigorous
published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning conditions for K-12 students.
9.Using Social Media to Engage Students
Though social media tools are still blocked in many schools, students around the world spend
vast amounts of time on social networks outside of school.
TERNES (2013) concluded in his study that the two most common social media sites,
Facebook and Twitter, offer several tools for interacting with students on a college campus.
Professionals can take advantage of the tools that seem to work best for the situation in which
they find themselves. Using Facebook groups and Pages allows the reach of the campus activity
to extend beyond the time spent together and can enhance the level of student engagement and
the learning that takes place as a result of these activities. Twitter offers the opportunity to
interact with other users and specific content through the use of hash tags, mentions, replies, and
re-tweets. These features allow students and professionals to interact with each other in real time.
This capability creates a community that can extend conversations past the face to face and can
enable users to interact with each other and engage with the content in new and meaningful
ways. Social media use will continue to grow with college aged individuals; the websites,
features, applications, etc. will change and adapt over time, but the concept of interacting with
one other online is here to stay. Establishments of higher education and the professionals
Reasons behind need of technology integration in students learning process

There are several reasons cited in the literature as to why technology should be an integral part of
learning for students. First, even though the relationship between technology and learning is
complex, research indicates that specific uses of technology can improve student outcomes.
While the availability of technology in the classroom does not guarantee impact on student
outcomes (e.g. Agodini, Dynarski, Heaviside, Novak, Carey, Campuzano, Means, Murphy,
Penuel, Javitz, Emery, & Sussex, 2007; Wenglinsky, 1998), when used appropriately, it can help
to improve students’ performance on achievement tests (e.g., Kulik, 2003; Wenglinsky, 2006).
Using technology for drill and practice generally has been found to be less effective than using
technology for more constructivist purposes such as writing, research, collaboration, analysis,
and publication (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). For instance, based on an analysis of NAEP
data, Wenglinsky (2005) found that for eighth-grade reading, use of computers for writing
activities positively affected test scores, but use of computers for grammar/punctuation, reading
drills, or tutorials negatively affected test scores. The educational use of technology also can
enhance competencies that go well beyond the knowledge and skills typically measured by these
achievement tests (e.g., Bransford, Brown, Cocking, 1999; Collins & Halverson, 2009). These
competencies include improved understanding of complex concepts, connections between ideas,
processes and learning strategies, as well as the development of problem solving, visualization,
data management, communication, and collaboration skills, which are among the skills that
employers find lacking even in many college graduates (The Conference Board, Corporate
Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human
Resource Management, 2006).
Second, recently released standards documents emphasize that the use of technology in
education is essential in helping students build 21st century skills. The Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (2009) has identified the skills and expertise that are essential for succeeding in
work and life in a 21st century global society. These include information, media, and technology
skills; learning and innovation skills; and life and career skills. These three skill sets are both
required for and applied through sophisticated uses of new digital media. While the Partnership’s
definition of 21st century skills is not universally accepted, there is considerable overlap between
their recommendations and those of professional teacher organizations and the U.S. Department
of Education. Specific technology literacy skills that the National Educational Technology
Standards (International
Society for Technology in Education, 2007) encourage teachers to incorporate across content
areas include: 1. Using technology to demonstrate creative thinking and to develop innovative
products, 2. Using technology to communicate and work collaboratively, 3. Applying digital
tools to gather, evaluate, and use information,
4. Using critical thinking and problem solving to make informed decisions regarding appropriate
digital tools and resources, 5. Understanding human cultural and societal issues related to
technology and practicing legal and ethical behavior,
6. Understanding technology operations and concepts. Similarly, the recently released National
Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), emphasizes the importance
of enabling students to experience technology in the ways professionals do in their fields (e.g., to
conduct experiments, organize information, and communicate) and encourages educators to
create learning experiences that mirror students’ daily lives and the reality of their futures.
Third, students are highly motivated to use technology. Technology and media use is
pervasive among children and youth. According to a recent survey of media and technology
use by 8-18 year olds conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts,
2010), young people in this age group spent an average of 7 hours, 38 minutes consuming media
per day and through multitasking are able to pack a total of 10 hours, 45 minutes worth of media
content into that time, seven days a week. Twenty percent of this media consumption occurs on
mobile devices such as cell phones, iPods, or handheld video game players. In 2009, 31 percent
of 8-10 year olds, 69 percent of 11-14 year olds, and 85 percent of 15-18 year olds owned their
own cell phones. Similarly, 61 percent of 11-14 year olds, 80 percent of 11-14 year olds, and 83
percent of 15-18 year olds owned iPods or MP3 players. Laptops were owned by 17 percent of 8-
10 year olds, 27 percent of 11-14 year olds, and 38 percent of 15-18 year olds. A recent survey
sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation found that nearly all young people (97 percent) use the
Internet by 8th grade. They use the
Internet on average almost 14 hours per week, and types of uses include social networking,
gaming, and sharing digital resources (sharing files, blogs, and personal websites; Metzger &
Flanagin, 2010).
Fourth, technology now has a considerable presence in public schools. According to a recent
survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010), 97
percent of teachers had one or more computers located in their classroom every day during the
winter and spring of 2009. Internet access was available for 93 percent of computers every day
(though school firewalls can limit the extent of Internet access in the classroom). Other
technology devices available in the classroom or in the school included liquid crystal display
(LCD) or digital light processing projectors (48 and 36 percent, respectively), interactive
whiteboards (23 and 28 percent), and digital cameras (14 and 64 percent). Many teachers also
reported having access to student data through their school or district network, including grades
(94 percent), attendance records (90 percent), and student assessments (75 percent). Ninety-
seven percent of teachers reported having remote access to school email and 81 percent had
remote access to student data. Teachers thus have at their disposal a powerful set of tools to
support teaching and learning. More and more studies show that technology integration in the
curriculum improves students' learning processes and outcomes. Teachers who recognize
computers as problem-solving tools change the way they teach. They move from a behavioral
approach to a more constructivist approach. Technology and interactive multimedia are more
conducive to project-based learning. Students are engaged in their learning using these powerful
tools, and can become creators and critics instead of just consumers.
Technology integration based outcomes for students
Despite the ready availability of technology in schools and compelling reasons to use it to
enhance teaching and learning, research indicates that it is not widely integrated into classrooms.
According to a recent survey of more than 1,000 high school teachers, IT staff members, and
students conducted by CDW Government LLC (2010), only 8 percent of the teachers surveyed
fully integrate technology into the classroom. Further, the survey found that teachers use the
technology primarily to teach (e.g., to give presentations), while students lack opportunities to
use technology hands-on. Sixty percent of teachers reported that they use technology in the
classroom, but just 26 percent of the students indicated they are encouraged to use technology
themselves. Both teachers and students reported that they use handheld technology (iPods, MP3
players, and smart phones) and social media (e.g., online text or video chat, blogs, podcasts) in
their private lives, but only about 12 percent or fewer of teachers reported that they use these
technologies in the classroom. Not surprisingly, 43 percent of students reported that they felt
unprepared or unsure of their level of preparation to use technology in higher education or the
workforce. Project RED (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, & Gielniak, 2010) conducted a survey of
nearly 1,000 school principals and technology coordinators. The survey found that 80 percent of
the schools surveyed under utilize technology they have already purchased. Few schools employ
practices that their study found to be correlated with improved student performance, such as a
1:1 student computer ratio, daily use of technology in core classes, daily electronic formative
assessments, and weekly teacher collaboration in professional learning communities (a
professional development practice that has been found to be effective in supporting teachers’
technology integration).
Technology and media should not replace activities such as creative play, real-life
exploration, physical activity, outdoor experiences, conversation, and social interactions that are
important for children’s development. Technology and media should be used to support learning,
not an isolated activity, and to expand young children’s access to new content (Guernsey 2010a,
2011b).
Computer-based delivery of education is one of the fastest growing trends in educational
uses of technology. Christensen et al. (2007) predict that by 2019, 50 percent of all high school
classes will be taught over the Internet. However, while providers of online education believe
that it is effective in reaching and serving a wide range of students, little research has been
performed to date to examine its effectiveness compared to face-to-face instruction in elementary
and secondary settings. Much of the existing evidence on the effectiveness of online learning
comes from research that has focused on higher education and professional development
contexts
(Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Means et al., 2009; Smith, Clark, & Blomeyer, 2005). A
meta-analysis of the available research (primarily conducted in post-secondary settings) showed
that on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving
face-to-face instruction. Students who participated in blended online learning experiences
outperformed students in face-to-face settings by a larger degree than students who participated
in online courses that were conducted entirely online (Means et al., 2009). It should be noted,
though, that blended courses often include additional learning time and instructional elements
not included in traditional face-to-face settings, so the difference in performance cannot entirely
be attributed to the online delivery medium alone. Five of the research articles included in the
Meta analysis conducted by Means et. al (2009) reported on studies conducted in K-12 settings.
These studies compared blended conditions with face-to-face learning. One of the studies
was a randomized control trial (Long & Jennings, 2005) and the others were quasi-experiments
(Rockman, 2007; O’Dwyer, Carey & Kleiman, 2007; Sun, Lin & Yu, 2008; Englert, Zhao,
Dunsmore, Collings, & Wolbers, 2007). One of the quasi-experimental studies (Rockman et al.,
2007) favored face-to-face learning, while the other studies favored online learning. In addition
to the research on effectiveness, there exists some research on the conditions under which online
learning is effective. Based on their synthesis of the research literature, Means et al. (2009)
found that few of the variations in which online learning is being implemented in different
contexts (e.g., synchronous versus asynchronous interaction) made a difference in student
outcomes, except for the use of a blended, rather than a purely online approach, and the
expansion of time on task for online learners. These two online learning practice variables
significantly improved student learning. Further, elements of online learning such as video and
quizzes did not influence the amount that students learned in online classes. However, the
research suggests that online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their
interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.
Moreover, DiPietro et al. (2008) found that the most important factor related to student
perceptions and outcomes in online learning courses is the role of the teacher. Stronger teachers
result in more engaged and more confident students. In online instruction, as in face-to-face
instruction, having a more involved teacher does not necessarily mean having a teacher who
dominates instructional time with lectures. Rather, in online learning environments strong
teachers must be able to connect pedagogy, content, and technology in order to facilitate
communication between students, and design informative and engaging learning experiences, all
while keeping pace with and integrating effective Internet technologies to support their teaching
practices.
Summary: Integrating technology into classroom instruction means more than teaching
basic computer skills and software programs in a separate computer class. Effective technology
integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that research shows deepen and enhance
the learning process. In particular, it must support four key components of learning: active
engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connection to real-
world experts." Technology helps change the student/teacher roles and relationships: students
take responsibility for their learning outcomes, while teachers become guides and facilitators.
Technology lends itself as the multidimensional tool that assists that process. For economically
disadvantaged students, the school may be the only place where they will have the opportunity to
use a computer and integrate technology into their learning. There is a growing body of evidence
that technology integration positively affects student achievement and academic
performance. However, while technology can support student centered learning, technology
alone it is not likely to transform traditional learning environments into student-centered ones.
Research on the use and integration of technology suggests that teachers and schools are most
likely to use technology to personalize learning if (1) it supports already existing, student-
centered practices and helps to solve problems or address challenges; (2) it is part of a systemic,
organization-wide initiative to implement student-centered learning; and (3) teachers have access
to ample professional development and ongoing support.

The Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET) found that, when
technology used in collaborative learning methods and leadership that is aimed at improving the
school through technology planning, technology impacts achievement in content area learning,
promotes higher-order thinking and problem solving skills, and prepares students for the
workforce.
References

Alper, M. “Developmentally Appropriate New Media Literacies: Supporting Cultural

Competencies and Social Skills in Early Childhood Education.” Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy (forthcoming).

Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature.
Computers and Education, 52(2), 402-416.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (eds.) (1999). How People Learn. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press. Available online http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?
record_id=6160.

Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study Commission on
Mathematics and Science Education (2009). The Opportunity Equation: Transforming
Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy. New York:
Carnegie Corporation. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from
http://www.opportunityequation.org

Center for Children and Technology (2004). Television Goes to School: The Impact of Video on
Student Learning in Formal Education (PDF). New York, NY: Education Department,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Charania, A. (2011). An integrated approach to technology in K-12 classrooms. National seminar

on information communication technology in education, department of education,
NEHU, Shillong.

Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Koli, W.-
T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V.M. Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A.
Sarr and P. Whetton, 2007: Regional climate projections. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 847-940.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital
revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E.W. & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12
online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 7(1), 10-35.

Dixon, B. (2009). Reflective Video Journals and Adolescent Metacognition: An exploratory

study. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2516-2522). Chesapeake, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved
February 7, 2015 from http://www.editlib.org/p/31011.

Dominguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., &
MartínezHerráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and
outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B.,
Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D., & Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of
Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 12, 2010 from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005.

Englert, C. S., Y. Zhao, K. Dunsmore, N. Y. Collings, and K. Wolbers. 2007. Scaffolding the
writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-
based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly 30 (1):9–29.

Flewitt, R.S. 2011. “Bringing Ethnography to a Multimodal Investigation of Early Literacy in a

Digital Age.” Qualitative Research 11 (3): 293–310.

Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2005). Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning (4th
Edition).Hougton Mifflin Company, NY.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S.
public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, E. (2010). Project RED key
findings. Shelton, CT: MDR. Retrieved from One-to-One Institute at www.one-to-
oneinstitute.org/NewsDetail.aspx?id=85

Guernsey, L. 2010a. “Screens, Kids, and the NAEYC Position Statement.” Early Ed Watch
(blog), August 2. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/screens_kids_and_the_naeyc_position_stat
ement-35103

Guernsey, L. 2011b. “A Modest Proposal for Digital Media in Early Childhood.” Early Ed
Watch (blog), June 24. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2011/a_modest_proposal_for_digital_media_in_
early_ childhood-53669

http://bie.org

http://caret.iste.org/

http://educationnorthwest.org/

http://www.ed.gov/

http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description

http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/MILE_Guide_091101.pdf

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). 2007. NETS for Students 2007
Profiles. Washington, DC: Author. www.iste.org/ standards/nets-for-students/nets-for-
students-2007-profiles.aspx#PK-2

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education).2007. 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada)
or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org.
Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of Using Instructional Technology in Elementary and Secondary
Schools: What Controlled Evaluation Studies Say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
Retrieved March 12 from http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/it

Light, D., and Polin, D.K., Center for Children and Technology. (2010). Integrating Web 2.0
Tools into the Classroom: Changing the Culture of Learning (PDF). New York, NY:
Education Department, Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Linebarger, D.L., J.T. Piotrowski, & M. Lapierre. 2009. “The Relationship between Media Use
and the Language and Literacy Skills of Young Children: Results from a National Parent
Survey.” Paper presented at the NAEYC Annual Conference, 18–21 November,
Washington, DC.

Long, M., & Jennings, H. (2005). “Does it work? : The impact of technology and professional
development on student achievement. Calverton, MD: Macro International.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-
Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning
Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development.

Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Medders, R., 2010. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility
evaluation online. J. Commun. 60 (3), 413--439.

Miller, L.M., Moreno, J., Estrera, V., Lane, D. (2004). Efficacy of MedMyst: An Internet
Teaching Tool for Middle School Microbiology (PDF). Microbiology Education, 5, 13-
20.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine

(2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a
Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st
Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) (2006). Tough Choices or Tough
Times: Report of the New Commission on the Skills in the American Workforce. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

O’Dwyer, L. M., R. Carey, and G. Kleiman. 2007. A study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana
Algebra I online course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39 (3):289–
306.

Rideout VJ, Foehr UG, Roberts DF.  Generation M2:  media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. 
Kaiser Family Foundation. January 2010. Available
at: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2010.

Rockman et al. 2007. ED PACE final report. Submitted to the West Virginia Department of
Education. San Francisco: Author.
www.rockman.com/projects/146.ies.edpace/finalreport (accessed March 5, 2009).

Ruben R. Puentedura. “Technology in Education: The First 200,000 Years”. NMC Summer
Conference, Ideas that Matter Presentation. (2012) Online at:
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000069.html

SMART Technologies Inc. 2006. Interactive Whiteboards and Learning improving student
learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. (www.smarterkids.org/research) –
sponsored by the SMARTer Kids Foundation of Canada.

Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, B. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online
learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis/

SparkNotes LLC. 2010. http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/glossary/

(retrieved March 31, 2015).

Sun, K., Y. Lin, and C. Yu. 2008. A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a
Web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education 50
(4):1411–22.

TERNES J.A.2013. USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO ENGAGE STUDENTS IN CAMPUS LIFE

B.S.E., Emporia State University. A REPORT submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Special Education,
 Counseling and Student Affairs College of Education KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Manhattan, Kansas 2013.

The Conference Board, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working
Families and Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). Are They Really Ready
for Work? Employers’ Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New
Entrants to the 21st Century U.S. Workforce.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming

American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Draft National Educational
Technology Plan 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
March 24, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/techreports.html

Warschauer, M. & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing
Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34,
179-225.

Wellings, J. & Levine, M. H. (2009). The Digital Promise: Transforming Learning with
Innovative Uses of Technology. New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame
Workshop.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology

and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Retrieved March 2, 2010 from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG.pdf

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using Technology Wisely: The Keys to Success in Schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Wenglinsky, H. (2006). Teachnology and Achievement: The Bottom Line. Educational

Leadership, 63(4), 29-32.

Woolf, B., Shute, V., VanLehn, K., Burleson, W., King, J. L., Suthers, D., Bredeweg, B., Luckin,
R., Baker, R. S. J.D., & Tonkin, E. (2010). A Roadmap for Education Technology.
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological
Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (4), 807-840.