Hopkins 1

Understanding Technology
Miranda Hopkins

Hopkins 2

Literature Review
In the Department of Education article (2010), the report gives the
Administrations National Education Technology Plan. The plan explains how to apply
the advanced technologies to the education system to improve student learning, increase
the speed and intensity of the adoption for effective practices, and using data and
information to promote continuous improvement. This plan calls for engaging and
empowering personalized learning experiences and instructs teachers to focus on what
and how they are to teach people what needs to be learned for different learning styles.
The plan helps educators to stay connected to the content, resources, data, information,
peers, and even experts that they will need to be highly effective in the classroom. In the
Administrations National Education Technology Plan, there are five goals that address
the learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity components of
learning that is powered by technology.
In the Quesada and Maxwell article (1994), their study went through three
academic semesters and included 710 students and teachers. They compared the
performance of college students taught pre-calculus using a graphing calculator and
college students taught pre-calculus using a text book written to be used with a graphing
utility. Quesada and Maxwell looked at the performance of students using the traditional
approach, a regular textbook, and a scientific calculator. On a comprehensive common
final exam, students who were taught pre-calculus using the graphing calculator had
significantly higher scores than those taught by the traditional methods. Quesada and
Maxwells research makes it clear that the use of technology has a positive correlation to
Hopkins 3
the scores on a final exam. The use of calculators must be fully understood by the
classroom instructor and at the same time, must be successfully explained to the students
in the classroom in ways that they can understand and remember.
In the Gray, Thomas, and Lewis article (2010), it provides national data on the
availability and use of technology among teachers in public schools during 2009. The
results are from three national teacher level survey that includes district, school and
teacher surveys on educational technology. These three surveys provide consistent
information and cover more topics than having only one survey. The results from these
surveys include information on the use of computers and internet access in the
classrooms, availability and use of computing devices and software, how teachers use the
school or district resources, and how students use the technology that has been presented
to them. This information is very important because it provides insight on how realistic it
is for all students to have the ability to properly receive the benefits of technology in their
classrooms. It is crucial that the schools have the means to provide the teachers with
resources and that the teachers take advantage of the resourced given or the students are
the ones who suffer. If the teachers cannot effectively instruct the students on how to use
the technology, it will become extra work and cause a distraction to them and will
ultimately have negative consequences in the classroom.
In the Scherer article (2011), the interview with the director of the Office of
Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education discusses how to realize the
true potential that technology has to transform and improve education. Scherer and the
director of the Office of Educational Technology at the U.S. Department of Education
describes that students need their own devices for the classroom, use the information they
Hopkins 4
access, and have skills to communicate and collaborate online. In order for the students to
obtain all these things, their teachers and instructors must be able to provide them with
stability and order in the classroom. That way, when students are learning with the use of
technology, they will not become overwhelmed with everything that is around them and
give up or shut down.
In the Lei article (2010), he discusses that the quality of technology used is much
more significant than the quantity of technology that is used. He observed that when only
the quantity of technology use was examined, no significant association was observed
but, when the quality of technology was examined by investigating the specific types of
technological uses, a significant association was identified between technology use and
all student outcomes. Also, different types of technology use showed different influences
on specific student outcomes. This is important because it clears up the possible
misconception that students will do better the more technology that is available to them,
which is not the case as Lei proved. The different type of technology that is available has
different effects on what the students learn and effects how they process information. If
the type of technology that is used is not visual friendly, they students will not be able to
visualize whatever it is that is being portrayed to them and in turn that topic will have to
be retaught to them.
There are some downsides to the use of technology in the classroom. These
include, the teachers do not know how to use the technology properly for the activity at
hand, the students get frustrated because they do not understand how the technology
works, the schools do not have the technological resources, and the fact that it can be
very time consuming in order to eliminate these negative factors. However, each of these
Hopkins 5
articles provides information that is beneficial to understanding the use of technology in
the classroom. Together they give a complete picture of how educational technology
benefits and contributes to students learning and that it is truly worth all of the extra time
to become familiar with all of the possibilities available.
Methods
In the Pre-AP Algebra I classroom demographics of the students consisted of
twenty students; fifteen were Caucasian, two were Hispanic, and three were African
American. There were nine females and eleven males. The percentages of ethnicities in
the classroom were very closely related to the percentage of ethnicities for the entire
school demographics, which is shown in Figure 1.












School
Caucasian
Hispanic
African
American
Classroom
Caucasian
Hispanic
African
American
Figure 1: Demographics: These graphs
show the demographics of the classroom
Hopkins 6
The pre assessment shows that the students had some understanding of how to
perform the double distribution method but they still needed some clarification on some
of the specifics of the processes. There were two days spent on the double distributive
(FOIL) lesson and there is recorded video footage to show how positive the students
responded to the technology used during the first day of the lesson. The post assessment
from day one provides evidence that technology truly benefits the students learning
abilities.
The pre assessment that was conducted during the third observation of the Pre-AP
Algebra I classroom. It contained two questions that dealt with multiple distribution and
combination of liked terms involved with solving the problems. The results are shown in
Table 1. The combined percentages of Fs and Cs was 47% which is equivalent to the
percentage of As. This shows that just as many students who knew the material, did not
know it or remembered just enough to receive a passing score. The actual pre assessment
along with answers is shown in Appendix A.

Table 1
Results of Pre Assessment from observation three
Number of points Received Grade Earned Percentage of students who received the grades
0 13 F 40 to 65% 29%
14 15 C 70 to 75% 18%
16 17 B 80 to 85% 6%
18 20 A 90 to 100% 47%

Hopkins 7
The video footage of the first day of the double distribution lesson, it showed how
important the technology of the SmartBoard is to display information to the students. The
lesson was introduced using the Algebra Tiles manipulaitve and the students had never
used them before. Because of the SmartBoard, the students were able to see the correct
way to use these manipulatives to help solve problems requiring the use of double
distribution. However, there are some negative aspects to using technology. There were
some students who were not engaged in the exploration phase of the lesson. These
students were either talking with their peers around them or just staring blankly into
space, while the students who were engaged in the exploration were focused on the
SmartBoard, following along with instruction, and working with the algebra tiles with
their partner. The transcription of the exploration portion of the lesson is shown in
Appendix B.





Table 2
Engaged and Unengaged Students during the Exploration Phase
Engaged Students Unengaged Students
Focused on the SmartBoard, following
along with instruction
Staring blankly at desk

Working with Algebra Tiles with partner Asking neighbors questions

Hopkins 8
The post assessment from day one consisted of eight different problems and each
student got a different one to answer. The results are shown in Table 3. The rubric was
composed of five points for having the correct answer and five points for showing the
method of choice properly. The assessment had very strong positive results which proves
that the students learn a great deal from being interactive with the technology in the
classroom. The questions that were handed out along with the correct answers are shown
in Appendix C.

Table 3
Results of Post Assessment from teach day one
Number of points Received Grade Earned Percentage of students who received the grades
0 6 F 40 to 60% 11%
7 C 70% 0%
8 B 80% 28%
9 10 A 90 to 100% 61%

The reliability of my video footage was conducted by Amanda Scivally. She
watched and noted how many children were engaged and were not engaged from 1:30pm
to 1:35pm during Classroom Interactions on Thursday, May 5, 2011. In the five minute
time frame, the footage was focused on a group of six students and she noted that five
students were fully engaged and that only one of them was not. When I watched it, I took
note of what the students were doing while they were engaged and while they were not.
An engaged student was watching the SmartBoard, following along with the example
Hopkins 9
problem and working with the algebra tiles and an unengaged student was asking
neighbors questions and staring blankly at the desk.
The pre and post assessments are valid because they are samples of what each
student knew at the time it was given out, they were not coached during the completion
of either assessment, and they did not use their partners for help. The grading was the
exact same for each students work because it was based on a preset rubric that did not
add or subtract points for creativity in styles of solving the problems, as long as the work
was correct and they arrived at the correct answer, then each student would receive full
credit for that particular problem.
Analysis
The first day of the lesson covering double distribution (FOIL), was focused on
the use of technology in the classroom. The pre assessment proved that without any
technological assistance, there is a 50/50 chance of the student successfully recalling
from memory how to complete a problem. Table 4 shows how many students received
each grade for the pre assessment. With only eight of seventeen students, less than fifty
percent, receiving an A, the pre assessment showed that there needed to be some more
clarification on how to properly distribute and follow the order of operations.

Table 4
Results of Pre Assessment
Letter Grade Number of Students
A (90 to 100%) 8
B (80 to 85%) 1
Hopkins 10
C (70 to 75%) 3
F (40 to 65%) 5

The video footage shows how to incorporate the technology into the lesson of
double distribution. The results from the footage show that the students were successfully
able to use the manipulatives to solve the problems on their own without the aid of the
teacher. See Appendix B for the conversation with Student 6.
The post assessment showed that the students were really able to grasp the proper
concepts of double distribution because of the intense amount of technology used. Table
5 shows the results of the post assessment and the number of students who received each
grade. With eleven out of eighteen students making an A, the students learned a great
deal and were more confident and comfortable with solving double distribution problems.


Table 5
Results of Post Assessment
Letter Grade Number of Students
A 11
B 5
C 0
F 2



Hopkins 11
Conclusion
Now that I have proof that technology is extremely beneficial to the development
of my future students, I will do my best to allow them to have manipulatives and
technological support in my classroom. Not only does it keep them engaged more times
than not, but it also causes them to discover new ways of looking at particular problems.
My desire is to incorporate as much technology inside my classroom and hopefully get
the buzz and excitement of all the cool things that is done with my students so that
other teachers will catch on and want to follow. My heart is for the students to know that
math is not hard or boring or scary but can be really fun and is used everywhere for many
different things. I feel that the use of technology will really help with these
misconceptions about math and because it has such a great effect on how the students
perform, makes it that much more desirable for the principles, districts, etc. to jump on
board.
Hopkins 12
References
Department of Education (ED), O. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning
Powered by Technology. National Education Technology Plan, 2010. US
Department of Education, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & National Center for Education Statistics (2010).
Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009. First
Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics, Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus Quality: A New Approach to Examine the Relationship
between Technology Use and Student Outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 455-472. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Quesada, A., & Maxwell, M. (1994). The effects of using graphing calculators to enhance
college students' performance in precalculus. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 27, 205-215.
Scherer, M. (2011). Transforming Education with Technology. Educational Leadership,
68(5), 16-21. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hopkins 13
Appendix A
Pre-Assessment 2

1) Which expression is equivalent to -7(x - 2) + 5(3 - x) - 4x? Answer: F. -16x + 1
F. -16x + 1
G. -16x + 29
H. -2x + 1
J. -12x + 13

2) Which expression is equivalent to 5[4 + 3(x - 6)]? Answer: B. 15x 70
A. 15x - 10
B. 15x - 70
C. 15x - 14
D. 15x - 110y


Rubric:
Shown work 5 points per question ------ Minus one point per mistake per question
Correct answer 5 points per question ------ Minus five points per incorrect answer
Total points 20 points ------ A 18 to 20 points
B 16 to 17 points
C 12 to 15 points
F 0 to 11 points

Appendix B
Video Transcription
ME
>> SO IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR DESK, THERE IS A LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER
WITH SOME TABLES ON IT. THE FIRST ONE WE ARE GOING TO USE THE
ALGEBRA TILES. YOU CAN WORK WITH YOUR PARTNER OR THE PERSON
SITTING NEXT TO
YOU. STUDENT 1, DO YOU WANT TO GO NEXT TO STUDENT 2 SO Y'ALL CAN
WORK TOGETHER? WE'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN -- WE'RE GONNA SHOW YOU
THE FIRST TWO, USING THE ALGEBRA TILES AND YOU WILL DO THE LAST
Hopkins 14
TWO WITH YOUR PARTNERS, OKAY? THE FIRST ONE IS X + 2 TIMES X + 3.
NOW, SO THE SQUARE TILE IS X BY X. SOWE HAVE GOT X BY X RIGHT
HERE. OK, SO WE WANT X + 2. WE ADD TWO WITH -- SO THIS ONE THE
GREEN SIDE IS POSITIVE, YES? SO WE WANT TO PUT + 2. SO WE HAVE 2. WE
HAVE X TIMES X AND OUR 2 AND OUR + 3. OK? NOW, WHEN WE MULTIPLY
USING DISTRIBUTION, YOU CAN FILL IN THE REST WITH OUR UNITS,
WHICH IS THE LITTLE SQUARES, OK? SO FILL IT IN TO COMPLETE THE
RECTANGLE. SEE HOW THEY LINE UP RIGHT HERE? SEE OUR ANSWER
ENDS UP BEING X
2
AND 3 + 2 = 5 X. THIS IS OUR X BY 1 TILES AND WE HAVE
POSITIVE 6. THAT IS OUR ANSWER. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO NOW, ON
THE SECOND ONE, Y'ALL ARE GOING DO TO IT -- WE WILL DO THE SECOND
ONE, OK? EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? YES?

STUDENT 3
>> DO WE NEED TO DRAW THESE SHAPES ON OUR PAPER?

ME
>> JUST DO IT ON YOUR DESK. RIGHT HERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO
YOU UNDERSTAND? EVERYBODY GOT IT? ARE YOU READY TO MOVE ON
TO NUMBER TWO, THE SECOND EXAMPLE? HOW ABOUT THIS ONE FOR X -
1. IF THE GREEN SIDE IS POSITIVE WE WANT TO SHOW

STUDENT 2
>> THE NEGATIVE WITH THE RED SIDE

ME
>> THAT IS RIGHT. WE HAVE OUR - 1 OVER HERE, RIGHT? WE WANT TO
ADD 4. EVERYBODY PUT THE 4 OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND NOTICE
THAT MR. HUDSON PUT OUR UNITS ON THE RED SIDE FOR NEGATIVE. HOW
DO YOU KNOW THAT ALL OF THEM ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE
NEGATIVE? REMEMBER, WE'RE MULTIPLYING. IF WE HAVE A POSITIVE
NUMBER TIMES A NEGATIVE NUMBER, THE ANSWER'S GONNA BE WHAT?
NEGATIVE. ALL THE UNITS ARE GONNA BE ON THE RED SIDE. OK? WE GO X
* X IS? AND WE HAVE POSITIVE 4 TIMES -1. OK. AND RIGHT HERE, THIS ONE
GREEN AND ONE RED, THEY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT, RIGHT? SO IF YOU
TAKE THEM OFF, THEN WE ARE LEFT WITH A POSITIVE 3X, RIGHT? AND
THEN WE HAVE OUR FOUR RED, WHICH IS - 4, RIGHT?
THAT WOULD BE THE ANSWER. WHAT Y'ALL WILL DO WITH YOUR
PARTNERS IS THE NEXT TWO. THEN WE WILL WALK AROUND AND IF YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS, LET US KNOW, OK?

TEACHING PARTNER
>> EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? YOU CAN TALK WITH YOUR PARTNERS,
Y'ALL ARE WORKING TOGETHER.

ME
Hopkins 15
>> SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WORKING WITH IT. SO WE HAVE X + 2 * X +
3. THIS HERE, WE HAVE X BY X. THERE IS OUR X. WE HAVE X + 2 RIGHT
HERE. THAT IS WHY YOU PUT IT ON YOUR PAPER. WE HAVE X + 2. HERE IS
THIS X HERE. WE WANT TO ADD TWO, RIGHT? NOW WE'RE MULTIPLYING
IT. NOW WE HAVE THIS.
INSIDE. SO WE'RE ALL USING THIS. MINUS 1X. SO X
2
- 1X - 6. SO X2 - 6. SO
TRY THAT. Y'ALL GOT IT?

STUDENT 4
>>[INAUDIBLE]


ME
>>YOU WILL DO X - 3 AND YOU ADD NEGATIVE 3. RIGHT, NOW FILL IN THE
REST OF IT. WILL IT BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?


STUDENT 5
>>[INAUDIBLE]

ME
>>SO YOU HAVE 1X AND - 1X. NEGATIVE 1 + 1. IT CANCELS OUT. DO YOU
HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT CANCELS?


STUDENT 5
>>[INAUDIBLE]

ME
>> HOW ARE YOU DOING, STUDENT 6?

SUDENT 6
>> ALL RIGHT.

ME
>> DID YOU DO IT THROUGHOUT?

STUDENT 6
>> YES.

ME
>> VERY GOOD!

CLASSROOM
>>[LAUGHTER]

Hopkins 16

TEACHING PARTNER
>> SO WE'LL DEMONSTRATE.

STUDENT 7
>> X2 - X, RIGHT?


ME
>>YOU SEE? NOW TRY TO USE THE ALGEBRA
TILE. DID YOU USE THE ALGEBRA TILE
TO FIGURE IT OUT?

STUDENT 8
>> YEAH.

ME
>> OK.

CLASSROOM
>>[LAUGHTER]


TEACHING PARTNER
>> THIS ONE. AND THEN ...


STUDENT 9
>>[INAUDIBLE]


ME
>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?


STUDENT 2
>> - 1 AND - 2. X * X. - 6.

CLASSROOM
>>[MULTIPLE PEOPLE SPEAKING]


STUDENT 2
>> I KNEW IT.


Hopkins 17

ME
>> YOU NEED TO FILL IN. YOU MULTIPLY IT.


CLASSROOM
>>[INAUDIBLE, MULTIPLE PEOPLE
SPEAKING]


STUDENT 2
>> X2
Appendix C
Post Assessment
Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
(2 3)( 4) x x

Answer: 2x
2
+ 11x + 12

Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
(2 1)( 4) x x


Answer: 2x
2
9x + 4

Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
( 1)( 6) x x


Answer: x
2
+ 7x + 6

Hopkins 18
Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
( 3)(3 5) x x


Answer: 3x
2
4x 15

Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
(2 3)(3 5) x x


Answer: 6x
2
+ 19x + 15
Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
( 1)(4 1) x x


Answer: 4x
2
+ 3x 1
Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
( 1)( 2) x x


Answer: x
2
x 2

Exit Ticket Name _______________ Period ____
Convert the following from Factored to Standard form
Show your work using a Model or an Algebraic process
(6 7)(2 3) x x


Answer: 12x
2
+ 4x 21
Hopkins 19


Rubric:
Shown work 5 points ------ Minus one point per mistake
Correct answer 5 points ------ Minus one point per mistake
Total points 10 points ------ A 9 to 10 points
B 8 points
C 6 to 7 points
F 0 to 5 points



Hopkins 20

Hopkins 21





Inquiry Four: Technological Strategies
Miranda Hopkins
University of Texas at Dallas
Saturday, May 11, 2013



Hopkins 22
Abstract
This inquiry was set up to determine if teachers perceive that the use of
technology in the classrooms benefits the students learning abilities and retention. A survey
was presented to thirty-five faculty and staff members of the UTeach program and students
returning to obtain their masters that contained questions regarding their teaching history,
current teaching status, and their perception of technology in their own personal classrooms. I
predicted that teachers would perceive that technology benefits their students learning and a
statistical analysis was performed to determine if there is significant statistical evidence to
support that claim.
Introduction and Hypothesis
I propose that teachers will perceive that technological strategies in the classroom really
do enhance the students learning abilities. This is because technology can support teachers in
implementing a student-centered approach to learning. This is demonstrated in a classroom
where considerable amount of individual student exploration using technology and student
choice of methods is encouraged (Pierce & Ball, 2009). As expressed in my UTeach classes, it is
best for math classes to be student centered because it allows the students to learn what it is
they do not understand without being initially overwhelmed by formulas or processes that the
teacher would normally just display on the board. Based on the opinion of the faculty leaders
who have successfully redesigned math courses is unanimous: students do not learn math by
going to lectures (Twigg, 2011). In my previous apprentice teaching environments, students
seem to enjoy more technologically advanced lessons and also doing practice problems on their
own time. The problem with that is there is no teacher right there at their side probing them
through the steps to find the correct solution. There are multiple technological avenues created
to guide homework help at home. Students quickly become comfortable with the technology;
Hopkins 23
they especially like the instant feedback they receive when working on problems and the guided
solutions that are available when they do not get a correct answer (Twigg, 2011). The benefit of
this type of homework help is that it presents the same information in many different ways and
creates a genuine desire to want to practice their work more. The purpose is to support
students in their mathematical thinking and understanding, [and] teachers can foster an
environment in which students solve problems using multiple representations (Cady, Collins, &
Hodges; 2008). Teachers will perceive that their students learning abilities and retention will
increase when more technology is involved in their students learning process.
Experimental Design
For this inquiry, I was testing whether technological strategies in the classroom truly
benefit the students learning abilities in the classroom based on the teachers perception
during the lessons. I conducted a survey that was distributed to the faculty and staff of the
UTeach program as well as the teachers who have returned to UT Dallas to obtain their masters.
Once all the data had been collected and tabulated, I performed a statistical analysis of the data
to determine if there is enough evidence to support my hypothesis or not.
Material List
The materials for this inquiry can differ depending on how the survey is being presented
to the participants. The first three items below are required, while the rest are optional:
1. Qualified Participants
2. Surveyor(s)
3. Survey(s)
4. Internet Connection
5. Computer/iPad/Smart phone
6. Printer/Copier
Hopkins 24
7. Pen/Pencil
8. Flyers


Procedure
Before there can actually be a survey given to participants, there must be an NIH
certificate of completion that qualifies you to be able to hand it out along with IRB approval.
Once that is obtained, the following procedure will generate a meaningful and realistic survey
for determining if teachers perceive that students learn and retain information better when
technological devices are used during a lesson.
1) Determine the participants will be the faculty and staff of the UTeach program and the
students returning to obtain their masters and how to present the survey; via web
anonymously or not, in person with pen and paper, in person with technological device,
etc.
2) Think about the demographics, if any, that could potentially skew the data. Such as;
what grade level they teach, how many students are in their classroom, do they teach in
public or private school, etc.
3) Come up with ten to twenty questions regarding that topic and allow two to three
choices for the participants to choose from. Please see the Appendix A to view the
questions for this survey.
4) Fill out the IRB Minimal Review Application and make changes as determined by the IRB
Committee until the application is approved.
5) Once approval has been made, distribute the survey using the recruitment script.
Hopkins 25
6) Gather only participants that meet the requirements as determined from step 1).
7) Calculate and tabulate the results then perform the statistical analysis to determine if
there is enough evidence to support the hypothesis projected. For this inquiry, a chi-
squared test will be best.



Analysis
I surveyed thirty-four faculty and staff in the UTeach program and students returning to
UTD to obtain their masters to determine if using technology in the classroom benefits the
students learning abilities and retention based on their perception. I performed a chi-squared
test for independence with the variable categories: technology present during the lesson and
the perceived effectiveness. The null hypothesis states that the presence of technology and the
perceived effectiveness are independent. The alternate hypothesis states that the presence of
technology and the perceived effectiveness are dependent. I set the significance level, alpha, to
be the standard 0.05 and the resulting p-value was 0.4932 which proves that my original
hypothesis is incorrect and that the use of technology has nothing to do with the students
learning abilities and retention. The table below shows the contingency table used for the chi-
squared test. For the full results from the survey, please see Appendix B.
OBSERVED Very Ineffective Ineffective Neither Ineffective or Effective Effective Very Effective total
technology 0 3 5 19 7 34
no technology 1 2 2 24 5 34
TOTAL 1 5 7 43 12 68

EXPECTED Very Ineffective Ineffective Neither Ineffective or Effective Effective Very Effective total
technology 0.5 2.5 3.5 21.5 6 34
no technology 0.5 2.5 3.5 21.5 6 34
TOTAL 1 5 7 43 12 68
Hopkins 26

Errors, Short Comings, Improvements, and Revised Hypothesis
If I redid this inquiry, I would first gather at least fifty to one hundred participants
instead of only thirty-five which is not enough for a valid pool of participants to perform the chi-
squared test for independence. If there was more time to promote my survey, I would have
been able to gather at least fifty participants so next time I will put the word out in advance and
then distribute the survey. Because of the small amount of participants that were gathered for
this survey, I feel that my chi-squared test for independence was dramatically skewed. For that
reason alone, I will still keep my original hypothesis as the hypothesis for this inquiry.
Conclusion
The results of this survey and from the chi-squared test did not support the initial
hypothesis that the use of technology benefits the students learning abilities and retention
based on the perception of the teacher. However, the chi-squared test was dramatically skewed
because there were only thirty-five participants and there needs to be at least fifty for an
accurate test to be performed. This inquiry will need to be preformed again, but at a different
university that has the same UTeach program as well as a class for students returning to obtain
their masters , with at least fifty participants to effectively determine whether teachers perceive
that technology benefits students learning abilities and retention.

Hopkins 27
References
Cady, J., Collins, R.L., & Hodges, T.E. (2008). Fraction Representation: The Not-So-Common
Denominator among Textbooks Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School , Vol. 14,
No. 2 (SEPTEMBER 2008), 78-84.
Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers intention to use technology in
secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 71(3), 299-317.
Twigg, C. A. (2011). The Math Emporium: Higher Educations Silver Bullet. Change, 43 (3), 25-34.

Hopkins 28
Appendix
A. Technological Strategies Survey
1) What is your age?
a. 20-29
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50+
2) What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
3) How many years have you been teaching?
a. 1-2 years
b. 3-4 years
c. 5-7 years
d. 8+ years
4) What subject(s) do you teach?
a. Math
b. History
c. Science
d. Language Arts/English
e. Other
5) What grade level(s) do you teach?
a. Kindergarten 2
nd

b. 3
rd
5
th

c. 6
th
8
th

d. 9
th
10
th

e. 11
th
12
th

6) What type of school do you teach at?
a. Private
b. Public
7) How many classes do you teach each day?
a. 0-2
b. 3-5
c. 6-8
8) Type in the average number of students you have in each class in numerical form:
a. _______
9) How many technological devices are in your classroom?
a. 1-3
b. 4-6
c. 7+
Hopkins 29
d. None
10) What technological devices do you use in your classroom and how often do you use
them?
a. Graphing Calculator/Handhelds
i. Do not use
ii. 1-2 times per week
iii. 3-4 times per week
iv. Daily
b. SMART Board
i. Do not use
ii. 1-2 times per week
iii. 3-4 times per week
iv. Daily
c. Computers/Laptops/iPads
i. Do not use
ii. 1-2 times per week
iii. 3-4 times per week
iv. Daily
d. None
11) How many technological devices are available at your school for your classroom?
a. 1-3
b. 4-6
c. 7+
d. None
12) What technological devices are available at your school for your classroom do you use
and how often do you use them?
a. Graphing Calculator/Handhelds
i. Do not use
ii. 1-2 times per week
iii. 3-4 times per week
iv. Daily
b. SMART Board
i. Do not use
ii. 1-2 times per week
iii. 3-4 times per week
iv. Daily
c. Computers/Laptops/iPads
i. Do not use
ii. 1-2 times per week
iii. 3-4 times per week
iv. Daily
d. None
Hopkins 30
13) Think of a lesson plan that utilized mostly technological devices to teach the students a
particular topic. Based on your perception, how effective were the students in learning
and retaining the material?
a. Very ineffective
b. Ineffective
c. Neither effective or ineffective
d. Effective
e. Very effective
14) Think of a lesson plan that utilized mostly no technological devices to teach the students
a particular topic. Based on your perception, how effective were the students in learning
and retaining the material?
a. Very ineffective
b. Ineffective
c. Neither effective or ineffective
d. Effective
e. Very effective

B. Results from Technological Strategies
1) Age

20-29 2
30-39 12
40-49 8
50+ 12

2) gender

male 8
female 26

3) years teaching
0 to 2 0
3 to 4 3
5 to 7 4
8+ 27

4) subject teach
math 4
history 3
science 34
lang/eng 4
other 0
5) grade level teach
k to 2
Hopkins 31
3 to 5
6 to 8
9 to 10
11 to 12

6) type of school
private
public

7) classes each day
0 to 2
3 to 5
6 to 8

8)avg number of
students
3 1
12 1
15 1
16 1
19 1
20 2
21 1
22 2
23 1
24 5
25 6
26 1
27 1
28 5
30 4
33 1
9) tech devices class

1 to 3 6

4 to 6 17

7+ 11

none 0


10) use in class dont
1 to 2 per
wk
3 to 4 per
wk daily
calculator 28 4 0 2
SMARTboard 18 5 1 10
pc 0 5 4 25
Hopkins 32
none 34 0 0 0

11) tech devices school

1 to 3 3

4 to 6 15

7+ 14

none 2


12) use at school dont
1 to 2 per
wk
3 to 4 per
wk daily
calculator 27 4 0 3
SMARTboard 17 5 2 10
pc 1 6 3 24
none 32 1 0 1

13) use tech

VI 0
I 3
N 5
E 19
VE 7

14) dont use tech
VI 1
I 2
N 2
E 24
VE 5