Lrocheactionresearch

Running
head: IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
Improving Classroom Management of Technology to Improve Student Performance

Lauren Roche
University of New England
April 21, 2016
Statement of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as
outlined in the Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct document relating to the
Honesty/Cheating Policy. By attaching this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify
that the work submitted is my original work developed specifically for this course and to the
MSED program. If it is found that cheating and /or plagiarism did take place in the writing of
this paper, I acknowledge the possible consequences of the act/s, which could include
expulsion from the University of New England.
IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

Abstract
Technology has found its way into most classrooms in the country, but not without a
significant list of pros and cons. Despite the arguments that are raised by parents, students, and
teachers, technology maintains its place in education as a key tool for preparing students for a
technology-filled world. As such, it is necessary for teachers to utilize technologys benefits to
education and limit its potential hazards. In this study, it was hypothesized that minimizing
student distraction and off-task behaviors through better management of technology (schoolissued and personal devices) among high school physics students would improve academic
performance on problem-solving assignments and assessments. Over the course of five weeks,
multiple management strategies were implemented in a junior physics class in an effort to better
manage the personal and school-issued devices that provide students with technological access.
During this time, eleven students were observed and data was collected to determine whether or
not the strategies decreased the distraction of technology, resulting in increased student
engagement and academic achievement. Results show that while the combination of technologymanagement strategies decreased the off-task use of devices by students, but perhaps not
impacting student engagement at all, student achievement was improved.
Keywords: technology, management, distraction, engagement, achievement

Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................5
Problem Statement ..........................................................................................................7
Research Questions .........................................................................................................8
Hypothesis.......................................................................................................................8
Literature Review.................................................................................................................8
The Purpose of Technology in Classrooms ....................................................................9
The Pitfalls of Technology in Classrooms ....................................................................10
Management of Technology in Classrooms .................................................................12
Summary .......................................................................................................................15
Methodology ......................................................................................................................16
Research Design............................................................................................................17
Data Collection, Instruments, and Data Validity ..........................................................19
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................21
Sample Selection...........................................................................................................22
Results ................................................................................................................................22
Findings ........................................................................................................................23
Technology Misuse ..................................................................................................23
Student Engagement ................................................................................................26
Student Achievement ...............................................................................................28
Discussion .....................................................................................................................29
Technology Misuse ..................................................................................................29
Student Engagement ................................................................................................30

Student Achievement ...............................................................................................31
Limitations ....................................................................................................................31
Recommendations for Further Research .......................................................................32
Action Plan.........................................................................................................................33
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................35
References ..........................................................................................................................37
Appendices.........................................................................................................................40
Appendix A: Student Technology Use Agreement ......................................................40
Appendix B: Classroom Map........................................................................................41
Appendix C: Student Technology Use and Engagement Pre-Study Survey ................42
Appendix D: Student Technology Use and Engagement Post-Study Survey...............43
Appendix E: Off-Task Behavior Teacher Rating .........................................................44
Appendix F: Student Grades/Averages Pre- and Post-Study ........................................45
Appendix G: Teacher Logbook ....................................................................................46


Improving Classroom Management of Technology to Improve Student Performance
Technology is becoming an essential tool in todays classrooms. Nowadays, it is an

inevitable fact that students experience benefits from using technology in their learning
environments (Eyyam & Yaratan, 2004). The primary reason schools are putting devices such
as iPads or laptops into the hands of their students is to prepare them for their futures, which
will inevitably involve the use of wireless technology (Grinager, 2006).
Thornton Academy is one school making such strides. In order to provide its students
with the most technologically advanced preparation for 21st century careers, the school launched
a 1:1 iPad program. En route to preparing its students for their futures, Thorntons plan created
an opportunity for them to use technology for educational purposes beyond the socialization and
entertainment purposes they were used to. Since the plan was launched, the integration of the
iPads in classrooms has provided teachers and students with an enormous variety of resources for
enhancing the learning experience, and making it more fun and effective for the students (A.
Doyle, personal communication, February, 10, 2016).
However, while recent research can attest to these benefits of technology use in the
classroom, its presence does require additional classroom management responsibilities and
teaching strategies. If such tasks and approaches are not employed, they can counteract the
potential benefits of technology use. If student devices are not managed appropriately, they can
become a distraction and have a negative impact on the learning experience.
The purpose of this study is to identify whether improved classroom management of
technology at Thornton Academy can improve student achievement. Thornton is an independent
town academy located in Saco, along the southern coast of Maine. Students in grades nine
through twelve come from a diverse array of socio-economic backgrounds, as well as

6

geographical regions, with 155 international students in the boarding program. Founded in 1811,
the school is rich in its history, but always working to be a leader in programming and culture. In
2014, Thornton launched an iPad initiative, placing iPads into the hands of each of over 1,400
students enrolled, as well as the 155 teachers employed there. The plan was simple to enhance
collaborative, interactive, and innovated learning both inside and outside of the classroom (R.
Menard, personal communication, 2014). Since then, there are parents, students, and even
teachers who question whether learning is being enhanced or if the iPads are solely a distraction
to students and an impediment to learning.
In Mrs. Roches high school junior physics classes at Thornton Academy, the positive
and negative aspects of implementing a one-to-one iPad program in a school can be observed
first-hand. iPads are used as a tool for students to access the class website to retrieve daily
agendas, homework assignments, supplemental readings and assessments, and to have access to
current events and answers to questions that cannot always be provided for them. The class is
also taught using a flipped classroom approach, which means the iPads are used at home for
students to view lectures so that more classroom time can be provided for students to ask
questions, practice problem-solving skills, and conduct hands-on or tech-integrated labs.
The iPads are invaluable when they are used in these capacities, but it is not a selfmanaging system that allows the teacher and students to reap these benefits. Students may take a
risk and use their cell phone during class, but are also prone to use their school-issued iPad for
the same off-task activities simply because the iPad is expected and permitted to be used in class.
The more time students spend in class using technology for non-class related purposes, the less
time they are engaged and learning. The primary purpose of flipping the classroom was to
improve concept engagement and development, which could be measured through assessments;

7

however, noticeable improvements were not being made in comparison to previous classes when
the material was not presented via a flipped classroom approach.
Problem Statement
It is common knowledge that technology has been an integral component to many
classrooms, but if not managed properly, technology may be more of a distraction than a tool to
boost academic achievement. Research indicates that students abilities to pay attention may be
hampered by multi-tasking with devices such as iPads, cellphones, and laptops (Jaschik, 2013).
iPads in Mrs. Roches junior physics class are expected to be used regularly for viewing video
lectures, completing and submitting assignments, and some assessment taking. However,
students also use their iPads (and some even use their personal cell phones) for non-class related
purposes throughout the period. Students are regularly found to be using school-issued iPads or
personal cell phones to socialize with peers through iMessenger, take selfies, read through their
Facebook newsfeed, Snapchat their friends, or watch videos on YouTube.
A survey of the students in the study showed that 72.8% used their cell phones and 45.5%
used their iPads for non-class related purposes at least once each class. Most students reported
using these devices for texting, checking the time, e-mailing, accessing social media, and web
surfing. The majority of this group believed cell phones had no impact on their learning (63.6%),
while the majority also believed iPads had a positive impact (72.7%). Without a strategic plan to
manage the use of technology solely for academic purposes in the class, the average of these
students was 93.0% for combined homework and classwork, and 51.9% for combined quiz and
test grades. Research suggests that proper management of technology will improve motivation
and engagement, ultimately reflecting in improved student achievement (Eyyam & Yaratin,
2004).

Research Questions
This research project proposed to find out if better management of student technology in
classrooms by teachers might improve student achievement. Three questions were considered to
guide the research. First, does access to technology in classrooms through personal and schoolissued devices, such as cell phones and iPads, hinder student learning by serving as a distraction
more than a learning tool? This question will be addressed using a comparison between student
survey responses before and after improved management practices are employed. Second, does
access to technology through school-issued devices promote student engagement? This question
will be considered by comparing observational records of student engagement over the course of
the study, as well as student survey responses to questions regarding engagement before and
after the study takes place. And finally, can strategies be employed to ensure technology is less
of a interruption and more supportive to a students academic performance? This question will be
investigated by researching and implementing suggested effective methods to supervise
technology use in the classroom. Their effectiveness will be considered based on student
engagement levels (collected via the aforementioned methods) and student achievement, which
will require analyzing student grades.
Hypothesis
Minimizing student distraction and off-task behaviors through better management of
technology (school-issued and personal devices) among high school physics students will
improve academic performance on problem-solving assignments and assessments.
Literature Review
Technology in classrooms has become a common component of the learning environment
whether it makes its way into classrooms through the integrated methodologies teachers are

9

employing or through students personal devices. The application of technology in the teaching
and learning process has merits; however, it also has unintended consequences (Haughton &
Nworie, 2008). Those unintended consequences need to be well managed if the potential
benefits of technology for student performance are to be reaped.
The Purpose of Technology in Classrooms
If schools are implementing the use of technology as part of their students curricula, they
are taking an important step in preparing students for the changing world in which technology
plays an enormous part (Eyyam & Yaratan, 2004). According to Grinager (2006), students will
be provided with technology literacy, information literacy, capacity for life-long learning, and
other skills necessary for their futures in the workplace. The importance of technology in the
workplace is well supported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Computers and
information technology (IT) touch nearly every aspect of modern life and employment. As it has
for the last 25 years, output in the IT industry is expected to grow rapidly as firms and individual
consumers continue to increase their use of IT services (Csorny, 2013). Such changes in the
working world have led to an increase in the emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) in high schools, which further encourages the inclusion of technology in
classrooms (Haughton & Nworie, 2008).
Additionally, embedding technology in the classroom is providing learning tools that
students are accustomed to using outside of school, which has been found to further engage
students in the learning process (Grinager, 2006). Laird and Kuh (2005), for example, found a
positive association with active and collaborative learning, student-teacher interaction, and deep
learning experiences for students who were engaged with technology (as cited in Zepke, 2010).
Because todays students are more engaged as a result of being conditioned to absorb

10

information from screens rather than from printed pages, if funding exists, it is not hard to find a
teacher who is not integrating technology (Bester & Brand, 2013). Those who have this
opportunity have the satisfaction of knowing their students have constant and instant access to
information and updated digital textbooks, as well as a plethora of educational and supplemental
apps to enhance their learning experiences.
With all of the aforementioned benefits of integrating technology, perhaps the most
important reason for integrating technology, besides preparing students for a world dependent on
technology, relates to motivation and achievement. According to Smaldino et al. (2005), besides
enhancing the learning capabilities of students and further engaging them in the learning process,
technology also increases their motivation (as cited in Eyyam & Yaratin, 2004). The motivation
of students by teachers is one of many systems, such as differentiated instruction and positive
and corrective feedback, necessary for effective teaching, and is known to directly impact
students academic performances (Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2015). The research of Bester
& Brand (2013) provides supportive evidence suggesting that technology plays a significant role
in the achievement of learners. According to analyses of U.S. data, this is true, as Bulut & Delen
(2011) stated the positive affects of technology use in classrooms on students science and math
achievement.
The Pitfalls of Technology in Classrooms
While there is a plethora of research to support the integration of technology in
classrooms to enhance student engagement, motivation, and achievement, there is also research
that requires educators to consider the potential pitfalls of technology in their classrooms. While
technology can be a wonderful teaching and learning tool in the classroom, it can also be an

11

obstacle in the learning process (Adams, 2006; Kearsley, 1998, as cited in Haughton & Nworie,
2008).
If technology is accessible to students, but not being used purposefully, it can be a
distracting tool and the learning process may be inhibited. The constant connectivity that
students have throughout the day provides for continual sources of interruptions and distractions
and potentially diminishes [their] ability to maintain attention and to concentrate and think
deeply about things (Faires, Robbins, Rollins, & Thornton, 2014, p. 479). In short, these
distractions hamper students ability to pay attention. With access, students may choose to play
games, listen to music, send messages to friends, and access social media over participating in
class-related work. Research suggests this behavior of multi-tasking with digital devices in
classrooms has become more habitual, automatic, and distracting (Jaschnik, 2013). Elder (2013)
uses the Bottleneck effect to explain how such multi-tasking behaviors can be detrimental to
learning. While students often claim, for example, that listening to music helps them concentrate,
or that they are able to process information simultaneously (e.g., reading assigned work on a
device while listening to music), they are only processing one type of activity at a time.
Additionally, both errors associated with multi-tasking and the decrease in processing speed are
due to capacity issues of the brains single-channeled processing area, known as working
memory (Buhner, Konig, Pick, & Krumm, 2006, as cited in Elder, 2013).
When school-issued devices are taken home, or students are expected to complete work
outside of the classroom using some means of technology, Becker (2000) found that students are
more likely to use the technology for entertainment than for school-related purposes (as cited in
Bulut & Delen, 2011). If students attention and cognitive resources are being divided between
academic tasks and personal tasks, both involving the use of technology, the potential for

performancesuch as academic achievementdecreases (Faires, et al., 2014; Haughton &
12
Nworie, 2008). In a study conducted at the University of Michigan, data analysis showed that the
use of technology for non-classroom purposes was, in fact, related to student performance;
higher rates of technology use were associated with lower exam scores (Fenn, Hambrick, &
Ravizza, 2014).
Management of Technology in Classrooms
Ineffective classroom management is associated with negative outcomes for students,
impacting student behavior and academic achievement in an undesirable way. (Briere et al., ,
2014). This means, when it comes to classrooms where technology exists, whether the
technology is incorporated into a lesson or not, teachers need to practice effective classroom
management skills to keep students engaged. In other words, if students are engaged, they are not
accessing their technology for off-task purposes and therefore, they are not jeopardizing their
potential to learn. To promote student engagement, learning, and ultimately achievement,
teachers must utilize effective classroom management skills that may or may not directly relate
to the technology if the potential for distraction of that technology is to be limited.
The unintended consequences of technology are foreseeable and will likely surface;
however, early detection of unintended effects and proper planning for appropriate interventions
may ward them off (Haughton & Nworie, 2008). A common first step to directly managing
technology in the classroom is presenting students with clear rules and expectations for behavior
and learning (Briere et al., 2014). If students know what acceptable and not acceptable use of
technology in class is, then they can expect the positive impact technology can have on their
learning when it is utilized appropriately, or they can expect the negative impact it can have on
their learning, in addition to set consequences (i.e. on-task point reductions, loss of access to the

13

technology for the remainder of class, phone call home, etc.). Once technology expectations are
made clear, students can be held accountable if they do not meet them (Heitin, 2013). It is also
important to promptly intervene when expectations are not being met, to reduce the possibility of
the problem being repetitive (Haughton & Nworie, 2008). Self-evaluation, in which students
measure their own behavior against the specific expectations, is an additional step to managing
the classroom. In this self-management process, students can determine if they are meeting the
expected rules and expectations regarding appropriate technology use, and evaluate their own
performance (Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2015).
Teachers also have some options for taking proactive steps toward minimalizing the
potential distractions that technology can have. In a study by Faires et al. (2014), student
performance observed when a cell phone was simply present was indicative of attentional and
cognitive defects. In a classroom, student cell phones and school issued devices, such as iPads,
both provide technology that offer constant connection and the potential for contact with a very
broad and social informational network. Thornton Academys technology integrator suggested
one technique: Some teachers have it in their expectations that when students arrive, they are to
deposit their cell phones in a shoe-organizer that hangs over the classroom door. If students opt
out of this system, the expectation is that their phones remain in their school bags. That way, if
cell phones are used during class, the student must accept the consequence. Another method that
was suggested was to clearly detail a protocol for iPad use in class. Teachers who incorporate
iPads into class can expect that they remain covered by their case (or turned upside down) until
students are asked to work with them (at which point, the teacher should implement close
proximity measures and monitor student use). If students are not following these standards,
again, they must accept the consequence (A. Doyle, personal communication, February, 10,

14

2016). Of course some students have it within an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to listen to
music during class. In these cases, a teacher would need to be mindful of how to manage that
students technology without ignoring the students learning accommodations.
Increasing engagement and limiting students temptation to stray off task is another way
to prevent technology from becoming a means for distraction and an impediment to academic
achievement. Bester & Brand (2013) concluded from their research a high correlation between
motivation and concentration indicating that high motivation can be associated with high
concentration. Active engagement in instruction, such as utilizing direct instruction techniques,
implementing peer tutoring, utilizing computer-based instruction, and providing guided notes,
makes it difficult for students to stray off task (Briesch et al., 2008). Increasing students
opportunities to respond is another way to incorporate active engagement (Marchand-Martella &
Martella, 2015).
Another means to work against the potential for students to get off task with their
technology is to prepare structured and organized classesscripted lessons with clear daily plans
of instruction, and systematic lessons that are logical in order. If there is a lack of structure and
organization, students are more likely to misbehave, including being off-task on their devices
(Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2015). As part of this method, it is also beneficial if there is
active supervision of students. This strategy has been shown to positively impact student
behavior by decreasing minor behavioral incidents in the classroom (De Pry & Sugai, 2002, as
cited in Briesch et al., 2008). If a teacher is not fluid throughout the classroom, students
particularly those who are not engagedmay feel inclined to send a text message on their phone,
play a game on their iPad, or send a selfie to a classmate through Snapchat, for example. If a
classroom is structured and organized, teachers will have the opportunity to keep a close

15

proximity to their students, allowing the teachers to encourage on-task behaviors (Briere et al.,
2014).
Another common management strategy known to effectively promote appropriate
behavior, and therefore achievement, is the use of praise (Marchand-Martella & Marchand,
2015; Briere et al., 2014). If students appropriate behavior is acknowledgedfor example, not
using their devices if they are not part of the lesson, or using only the expected tools or programs
that are part of the lessonan increase in students on-task behaviors and academic success can
be expected (Briesch et al., 2008). This technique is easier to employ, once again, if the teacher
has prepared a well-planned and fluid lesson so that he or she can be amongst the students,
interacting, observing, and offering positive feedback and praise.
Summary
There is research that supports the use of technology in classrooms in order to promote
student learning and academic achievement; still, such benefits require careful planning and
implementation. If not thoughtfully integrated, technology can distract students and have a
negative impact on their learning, resulting in lower academic achievement. Teachers who
effectively manage their classrooms, however, maximize student engagement and increase the
likelihood of academic success (Briere et al., 2014). Of course, there are many methods by which
to improve classroom management. Because evidence supports the use of multiple classroom
management strategies, used individually or in combination, these methods may increase the
probability of student engagement (Briesch et al., 2008). It is up to each teacher to determine
which management strategies they can implement to keep their students engaged in a
technology-filled classroom and better guided toward academic success.

In this study, the teacher-researcher will provide clear expectations to students about
16
appropriate and acceptable technology use, as well as what the penalties are for not meeting
expectations. Clear expectations on placement of devices (iPads and cell phones) and usage
times and purposes will be explained. Once rules and expectations around technology have been
covered, the teacher will continue to provide well-planned and structured lessons to minimize
potential down-time. This will happen through the use of the class website with clear agendas,
copies of assignments, and links to tutorials. Within the class, students will be actively engaged
with the use of guided notes, as well as in-class practice of physics problems and labs utilizing a
flipped-classroom approach. The teacher-researcher will also increase proximity to students
throughout each class period, in an effort to ward off any potential distractions or address such
misuse as early as possible should it arise. Implementing these methods should prevent students
from getting off-task and using their technology for non-class purposes, as well as minimalize
the distractions the technology can create. If implemented properly and the technology is wellmanaged, the teacher-researcher expects student engagement and achievement to improve.
Methodology
Technology has become an essential tool in many classrooms. While many students have
opportunities to use technology to support their learning, they also have access to a device (and
sometimes more than one) that can lead them astray during class time with non-class related
activities such as socializing and web-surfing. In the teacher-researchers third block physics
class, the majority of students bring their personal cell phones to class and every student is in
possession of a school-issued iPad. Both devices provide regular opportunities for students to get
off-task, making the learning process an interrupted one for the individual student who uses his
or her device for a non-class related purpose, as well as for those students who are distracted by

17

the teacher-researchers address of a students behavior over technology misuse. If technology is
not managed appropriately in classrooms, it may create more opportunities to distract students
from their academics rather then aid in their achievement.
Three questions guided the teacher-researchers study. First, does access to technology
through school-issued devices, such as iPads, promote student learning? Second, does access to
technology in classrooms hinder student learning by serving as a distraction more than a learning
tool? And finally, what strategies can be employed to ensure technology is less of an interruption
and more supportive to a students academic performance? The methodology was developed to
answer these questions in an effort to determine if minimizing student distraction and off-task
behaviors through better management of technology (school-issued and personal devices) among
high school physics students in and out of the classroom will improve academic performance on
problem-solving assignments and assessments.
Research Design
To determine whether minimizing distraction and off-task behaviors through better
management of technology among high school physics students will improve academic
performance on problem-solving assignments and assessments, the teacher-researcher
implemented a mixed methods study collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. To
measure the effectiveness of management strategies on student achievement by increasing
engagement and decreasing distractions, quantitative data was required (student grades and
student ratings of engagement). Because the management strategies were meant to limit
distractions by school-issued and personal devices, qualitative data was needed (observations of
student use).

The collection of student-questionnaires provided a qualitative baseline for behavior
18
associated with technology use in class. The first management strategy involved the introduction
of class technology expectations to students including outcomes for non-acceptable use. The
expectations were clarified in the Student Technology Use Agreement (Appendix A) and
accessible to students on their iPads. Students, as well as their parents, were expected to sign the
agreement and submit the document to the teacher-researcher. The expectations asked that
students leave their phones in an over-the-door shoe storage system that was labeled with their
names as shown on the Student Map (Appendix B). If students opted out of this, their phones
were expected to be in their bags for the duration of class. Students were expected to use their
school-issued iPads at the beginning of class to check the detailed daily agenda on the class
website (managed through Weebly) so that they could get an understanding of how class time
would be used from beginning to end. Once this task was completed, it was expected that
students would keep their iPads locked and covered with the school-issued case on the corner of
their desk until they became part of the days lesson. When it was expected for iPads to be used
for class purposes, the teacher-researcher would increase her proximity to the students and
observe the use of the iPads.
Once expectations were shared, the teacher-researcher became an active participant and
began observing the outcomes of the implemented management strategies by examining
students interactions with technologylooking to see that students were not using their devices
(personal or school-issued) when they were not expected to be, and to see that they were using
their iPads appropriately when they were expected to. To be in a position to be an active
participant, the teacher-researcher moved fluidly throughout the classroom whenever possible,
following the general pathway when possible as depicted in the Classroom Map (Appendix B;

19

student questions, incoming office phone calls, or guests at the door would generally interrupt
this path). The teacher-researcher took field notes to record information if students were off-task
on their devices (personal or school-issued). If a student was off-task, the teacher-researcher
recorded what the off-task behavior was, when it was happening (during time when the iPads
were or were not being used), how often it was observed, and what the device was. The teacherresearcher also addressed any misuse of technology, recording to which student and during
which activity this address was made.
Data Collection, Instruments, and Data Validity
Before interventions were in place, the Student Technology Use and Engagement PreStudy Survey (Appendix C) was given to the students to determine a baseline for their average
daily tech-use in class, their engagement, and how often they are off-task. Students completed
the survey using a GoogleForm. Each student was also ranked by the teacher-researcher at this
time using a frequency Likert Scale based on the relative number of times they were asked to
refrain from engaging in off-task behavior using a cell-phone or school-issued iPad each class
(Appendix E: Off-Task Behavior Teacher Rating). And lastly, before interventions were
implemented, an Excel spreadsheet was used to organize students pre-study grades and averages
(Appendix F: Student Grades/Averages Pre- and Post-Study). All grades were taken from
PowerSchool, Thorntons student management system.
Once interventions were implemented, the teacher-researcher recorded the names of
students who required prompting to disengage in off-task technology behavior, as well as what
devices were being misused and how they were being misused (i.e. Facebook, texting, e-mail,
etc.) in a Teachers Logbook (Appendix G). At the end of the study, the same Likert Scale that
was used to rate students based on the frequency of observed and addressed technology misuse

20

prior to the study was used to assign students a post-study rating. During the study, the Excel
spreadsheet (Appendix F) was used to organize and analyze student grades as recorded in
PowerSchool, as well as post-study averages once the study was complete. Finally, at the end of
the study, the final collection of data was provided to the teacher-researcher through the Student
Technology Use and Engagement Post-Study Survey (Appendix D) completed by the students
via a GoogleForm.
Wolcotts strategies for ensuring the validity of any qualitative research prompted the
inclusion of another junior physics teacher, as well as another colleague who had conducted an
action research project, to provide feedback during the design of the study (Mills, 2014). Both
colleagues believed the use of student surveys and field notes from observation provided useful
qualitative data and that the use of homework and quiz averages provided sufficient quantitative
data. One colleague suggested altering the post-study survey to ask students if they felt the
applied interventions affected their standard technology use (pre-study use). This question was
added for two reasons: (1) to assess whether the management strategies were effective to manage
technology; and (2) to assess whether the management strategies promoted student engagement.
Student answers would help identify whether the management strategies were responsible for
limiting their technology use to class-related purposes, thus promoting engagement and
achievement. One colleague also suggested increasing the sample selection to include frequent
offenders of technology misuse in an effort to collect useful data, considering some of the
students in the study were not known to misuse their technology during class. The validity of the
research was also ensured through the practice of triangulation to provide credibility and
confirmability to the study as detailed in the triangulation matrix in Table 1.

Table 1.
21
Triangulation matrix
Data Source
Research Question
1. Increased
student
achievement?
1
PowerSchool;
Pre-Study Data
2
PowerSchool;
Post-Study Data
3
Post-Study
Survey
2. Distraction?
Pre-Study
Survey
Field Notes
Post-Study
Survey
3. Effective
Strategies?
Field Notes
Post-Study
Survey
Data Analysis
A Teachers Logbook (Appendix G) was utilized by the teacher-researcher in class to
record the field notes taken as student use of technology was observed each class. The logbook
included daily notes on which students were off-task with their technology, how those off-task
students were using their technology, and how often the teacher-researcher addressed the
technology misuse in class. The teacher-researcher first looked for any differences in each
students pre- and post-study ratings, and then looked for themes among the qualitative data in
the analysis of the field notes; for example: in what ways technology was distracting students;
whether there were particular times in class when students were misusing technology; which
students were less distracted after strategies were implemented, etc. Essentially, identifying
themes involved asking the key W and H questions (who, what, where, when, why, and
how) as referenced by Mills (p. 137, 2014).
From the Excel spreadsheet (Appendix F) that was developed to collect primary
quantitative datapre- and post-study grades and averagesthe teacher-researcher analyzed
similarities and differences in student achievement by comparing the homework and assessment

22

averages of individual students, as well as the class, before and after management strategies were
applied. Individual student information was organized in reference to assigned student numbers
to censor the identity of the participants. The spreadsheet maintained homework and classwork
grades and averages, as well as quiz and test grades and averages during the study. All grades
were pulled from PowerSchool.
Sample Selection
Eleven of 25 students enrolled in the teacher-researchers third block heterogeneouslymixed physics class comprised the sample selection, although the entire class was subjected to
the implemented strategies. Eight of the students in the sample selection were juniors (6 females
and 2 males) and 3 were seniors (1 female and 2 males). While there were a few students within
this group who were frequent offenders of off-task technology use in class, most students had
been addressed at least once (either individually or collectively) for technology misuse. Three of
the students had never been observed or spoken to individually regarding any misuse of
technology (2 of those students had only been in the class for four weeks prior to the study being
conducted, while the others had been enrolled in the teacher-researchers class for the entire fall
semester prior). All of the students were part of a more challenging class, behaviorally, and it
was believed that technology played some role in their behaviors in class. In the student surveys
(Appendices C and D) that were distributed prior to and after new technology management
strategies were implemented, all eleven students reported owning and bringing personal cell
phones to every class. 81.8% of the students reported bringing their iPads to every class.
Results
In an effort to better manage personal and school-issued technology devices in the
teacher-researchers classroom, some simple strategies were implemented primarily to limit off-

task use. First, a set of technology expectations was presented to the students, detailing how
23
technology was to be used daily in class, as well as consequences for non-acceptable use.
Students and parents were asked to acknowledge these expectations by signing the document.
Second, as part of the expectations, students were asked to check the class website for the days
agenda so it was clear whether technology was required for the day or not, and if so, how it was
to be used. This was to help students make the decision or comply with any prompts to put
devices away if they were not going to be used, or set iPads aside and closed until they were
required. Third, the teacher-researcher increased proximity to working students to monitor the
use of technology through the class periods; reaction to a students misuse of a device followed
the course outlined by the technology expectations and prompted a log entry in the logbook.
The abovementioned methods were implemented to decrease the technology-related
distractions that were frequently occurring in the teacher-researchers physics class. It was
considered that the off-task behaviors of students using their personal cellphones or schoolissued iPads was disrupting their learning by disengaging them from class and negatively
impacting their achievement. By applying the technology management strategies, such
distractions were sought to be minimalized with the hopeful results of increasing engagement
and improving achievement.
Data was collected prior to the strategies being implemented to develop a baseline for
student technology use, engagement, and achievement. The strategies were applied for five
weeks before post-study data was collected measuring the same variables.
Findings
Data was collected regarding technology misuse, student engagement, and student
achievement, which offered a number of significant findings within each of these categories.

24

Technology Misuse. The Student Technology Use and Engagement Pre-Study Survey
was distributed to students through GoogleForm prior to technology management strategies
being implemented on the first day of the five-week data collection period. Two questions asked
students to quantify how often they used their personal cell phones and school-issued iPads for
non-class related purposes. The Student Technology Use and Engagement Post-Study Survey
was distributed to students on the last day of the data collection period after new technology
management strategies had been executed for five weeks. Two questions in the post-study survey
asked students to once again quantify how often they were off-task on their devices in class.
Figure 1 presents the results of students answers to these questions.
Prior to the study, 73% of students reported using their cell phones at least once each
class for non-class related purposes. Those who reported using their iPads at least once each
class for non-class related purposes made up 45% of the surveyed students. After the study was

25

completed, students reflected on their technology use during the five-week study period and 45%
reported being off task on their cell phones at least once each class, while 36% reported being off
task on their iPads at least once.
Prior to the data collection period, the teacher-researcher assigned each of the eleven
students in the study a Likert Scale rating. A students assigned rating was determined by the
teacher-researchers opinion of how frequently the student was asked to disengage in off-task
behavior on a personal cell phone or school-issued iPad by getting back on task or putting the
device away. From the teacher-researchers observation log that was updated daily during the
data collection period, each student was again assigned a rating using the same Likert Scale.
Figure 2 identifies the similarities and differences between students ratings before and after the
technology management strategies were implemented.

26

Before and during the study, Students B, I, and J were never observed, nor addressed for,
engaging in off-task behavior on their cell phones or iPads. During the 10-class study, only
Students A, C, E, F, and K were observed to be using their devices for non-class related
purposes. The teacher-researcher recorded these incidents in a logbook. Student A was addressed
once in the third class for using a cell phone for texting. Student C was asked once to refrain
from using a cell phone to access Facebook during the second class, and once in the seventh
class to refrain from web surfing. Student E and F were both asked on one occasion eachin
classes 9 and 10, respectivelynot to use their cell phones. Both students were using their phones
to access their grades on PowerSchool. Student K was addressed twice during the first class of
the study for cell phone and iPad misuse for gaming. Student K was also addressed in the ninth
class of the study for iPad gaming.
Student Engagement. The final question from each of the GoogleForms (Appendices C
and D) submitted by the eleven students on the first and last days of the study asked them to
consider their level of engagement in physics class based on Briesch et al.s (2008) definition of
engagement. Figure 3 represents the percentage of student answers on each of the GoogleForms.

27

As Figure 3 depicts, the percentage of student responses did not change for any of the
options that were given in their surveys. Prior to and after the study, 90% of students agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement, I am engaged in my physics class and only 9.1% disagreed.
The surveys (Appendices C and D) also asked students to identify their feelings about
cell phone and iPad impact on their own learning. Figure 4 reflects students perceptions of each
devices impact on their learning prior to and after the study.
Prior to the study, as seen in Figure 4, 63.6% of students believed their cell phones had
no impact on their learning and only 54.5% of students believed their iPads had a positive
impact. After the study, only 27.3% believed their cell phones did not impact their learning, with
the rest of the group agreeing that these devices had a negative effect. Additionally, after the

28

strategies were implemented, 72.7% of students did feel iPads had a positive impact on their
learning.
Student Achievement. Thornton Academys student information system (PowerSchool)
served as the data management program for the study. From this, students homework,
classwork, quiz, and test grades were recorded. Averages of homework and classwork grades
combined were determined for each student, as well as the class, prior to the new management
strategies being applied. The same was done for quiz and test averages combined. At the end of
the study, the same averages were determined for assignments that were completed on and after
the first class meeting period, and up to the last class during the five-week period of the study.
Table 2 shares the assessment averages for each student, as well as the class, prior to and at the
end of the study. Columns 4/6 provide the percent change (positive and negative) in individual
student and class averages for each category of assessment.
Table 2.
Student and Class Averages
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Sample
Average
Pre-Study
Work
Average*
93.3
87.5
59.0
99.0
91.4
87.3
91.2
79.5
88.2
62.7
77.6
83.3
Post-Study
Work
Average*
100
100
60.0
98.6
98.6
100
100
100
97.6
67.6
100
93.0
%
Change
7.1
14.3
1.7
-0.4
7.9
1.5
9.6
25.9
10.7
7.9
28.8
10.4
Pre-Study
Quiz/Test
Average
53.0
73.8
35.0
60.6
45.0
67.0
53.4
37.3
63.0
46.3
36.2
51.9
Post-Study
Quiz/Test
Average
66.4
82.0
55.9
100
70.4
86.3
78.0
69.7
88.5
86.4
42.3
75.1
%
Change
25.4
11.1
59.4
65.0
56.3
28.8
29.9
86.8
40.5
86.9
17.1
46.1
*Work refers to any assignment that is completed in class or at home to practice concepts.

Discussion
29
The results of the study provide data from which inferences can be made regarding how
technology misuse, student engagement, and student achievement were impacted by technology
management strategies that were implemented over the course of the study.
Technology Misuse. After new technology strategies were implemented, students in the
sample study were expected not to use their cell phones or school-issued iPads to engage in offtask behaviors. Figure 1 shows that prior to the study, 73% of the students reported that they
used their cell phones at least once per class for non-class related purposes, and 45% were offtask on their iPads this frequently. After the technology management strategies were applied,
these values dropped to 45% and 36%, respectively, suggesting the management strategies
limited disruption to student learning associated with technology misuse. To further support this
idea, the teacher researcher kept a logbook to record how often students were addressed for the
misuse of their devices. Comparing the frequency of prompts prior to the study to after using a
Likert Scale rating (Figure 2), it was evident that in all possible cases (only eight of the eleven
students had ever been asked to disengage from off-task use), the frequency of students needing
such reminders decreased. In three of the eight cases where technology misuse had been
addressed previously, the teacher researcher did not have to address those students once during
the study.
However, the results from the student surveys suggested that the students engaged in offtask behaviors on their devices more often than the teacher-observer was aware. The survey
options for the number of times students were off task ranged from 0, 1 to 3, 4 to 10, and 11-20
(no students chose the last option of More than 20). Pre-study off-task use ranged from 24-75
total engagements per class and 8-22 total engagements per class during the study. The teacher

30

researcher only addressed technology misuse 8 times during the study, so it is probable to say
that teacher observation, while somewhat effective, is not a technology management strategy that
can be implemented alone with the expectation that students disengage as much as possible from
off-task technology use.
Student Engagement. Also prior to the improved technology management strategies
being implemented, students were asked in a survey whether or not they were engaged in their
physics class. Once the strategies were in place and continued for five weeks (over 10 class
meeting times), students were asked the same question. There was no difference in student
responses, as seen in Figure 3. It is important to note, however, that prior to the study 45.5% of
students strongly agree[d] when asked to what extent they agreed with the statement I am
engaged in my physics class. Based on this feedback, only 54.6% of the sample selection could
feel their levels of engagement might have increased during the study. What more, in that
percentage, only 9.1% could have potentially increased their engagement beyond the pre-study
rating of disagree. From the teacher-researchers observations during the study, as compared
to student engagement observed before management strategies were in place, students were more
engaged. Student misuse of technology required less attention from the teacher-researcher during
class, which meant the class was less-frequently disrupted and students were encouraged to
passively or actively participate in class. What more, from Figure 4, it can be seen that 45.4%
more students agreed that their cell phones had a negative impact on their learning and 36.3%
decided that their iPads did have a positive impact after the strategies had been implemented.
These results suggest that after improving their technology use habits in class, students were
more aware of the positive and negative effects technology could have on their academics. Such
awareness would likely come from better understanding of concepts and noticeable

improvements in their grades. Progress in these areas would be unlikely to occur without an
31
increase in student engagement.

Student Achievement. Table 2 presents the pre-study work (homework and classwork)
and quiz/test averages of the class were 83.3 and 51.9 percent, respectively. Once technology
management strategies were introduced and executed throughout the ten-class period that was
allotted, those averages improved to 93.0 and 75.1 percent. While these values are promising, it
is important to also look at the individual changes each of the students involved in the study
experienced. Of the eleven students, all but Student D increased their work averages. Individual
work averages produced a mean percent change of 10.4, with a range of -0.4 to 25.9% change.
All students saw an increase in quiz/test averages, with a mean percent change of 46.1 and a
range of 11.12 to 86.88% change. This data, which can be summed up by the fact that 95.5% of
the student sample averages increased over the course of the study, suggests that the strategies
that were combined and implemented to better manage technology in the classroom were
effective in improving student achievement.
Limitations
The technology management strategies were to be effective over the duration of five
weeks of block scheduling classes, which meant 12 class-meeting times for the teacherresearchers student sample. However, the teacher-researcher was unable to be present for one of
the classes and a snow day prevented another class from meeting. As a result, the study was
limited to 10 meetings during the five-week allotment. In collecting student grades for work
averages, the pre-study average was based on 13 assignments while the post-study average was
based on 8. If a student does poorly on an assignment during the study, that average would weigh
more heavily in his/her average as compared to a low grade on a pre-study assignment. As for

32

quiz/test averages, the pre-study average was based on two quizzes and the post-study average
was based on one quiz and two tests. Generally in this physics class, students fare better on tests
because they have already been subjected to the material in quiz-form. Therefore, the results of
these grade values may be more suggestive than they ought to be relied upon.
Another limitation to the study was the sample size. Only eleven students participated in
the study. While this small subset was meant to represent the full population of the class, it is not
clear whether the results are significant, or if the findings were observed simply by chance.
Lastly, given the course and the linear progression of its algebra-based subject matter,
the content prior to the study and throughout the study cannot be considered equally challenging.
Some content may have been more difficult for students to master than others, making the results
questionable as to whether they were entirely related to the implementation of the strategies or if
they were also related to the level of difficulty or ease with which students had with assignments
and assessments.
Recommendations for Further Research
Should further research on the topic be conducted, perhaps the same time period and
same sample selection might produce different results if different technology management
strategies were implemented. If these factors were to be adjusted, while the results were
favorable in this study, increasing the study time to a complete semester would likely produce
more accurate results. The number of pre- and post-study work assignments should be more
equivalent in number, as well as for quizzes and tests. If the same strategies were to be further
investigated for possible effectiveness in improving student engagement and achievement,
greater sample size and length of study times would produce more accurate and valuable results.
A larger sample size could potentially support the validity of the results that were gathered from

this study. Increasing the number of participants would provide more value to the academic
33
averages, as well as represent a broader selection of students to include those who have learning
accommodations or do not speak English as a first language, for example. Rather than trusting in
results produced from less than half of a classroom to represent the trend of the whole class, it
would be more valuable to have an entire class results represent two sections of the course being
taught.
Action Plan
A 1:1 iPad initiative at Thornton Academy offered teachers and students access to digital
learning; however, the school-issued devices, along with student owned devices such as cell
phones, also provided opportunities for students to be distracted in classes. When students are
distracted, it is very likely they are not learning. As a result, there was concern that the
theoretically valuable technology was doing more harm than good in a junior science class.
Technology management strategies were implemented to decrease the distraction of cell phones
and iPads in an effort to increase student engagement and achievement. It was thought that
student engagement would increase, and ultimately students would be more academically
successful, if they reduced the amount of time they were off-task on their devices. A set of
technology use guidelines was enforced in the class, daily review of the class agenda prompted
the appropriate placement and expectations of devices, and start of class reminders, as well as
close teacher proximity to students throughout class, combined to improve the management of
technology in the classroom.
As a whole, off-task usage decreased in the sample selection. In all but one case, students
were able to increase their combined homework and classwork averages. In all cases, students
were able to increase their combined quiz and test averages. Despite these improvements, the

34

sample selection did not report any changes in their levels of engagement, although the teacher
researcher observed positive changes. This indicates that commitment to implementing
technology management strategies can promote student achievement.
While the results of the study seem to be decisive of the interventions effect, the number
of limitations supports the need for further research. The proposed action is to continue
implementing the technology management strategies for the remainder of the semester and
collect student averages for all 24 students in the same section of junior physics that the study
took place. These values will be compared with a second section of junior physics, also made up
of 24 students, that follows the same curriculum day-by-day with the same homework and
classwork assignments, as well as the same quizzes and tests. Technology in the second section,
however, is being managed to the same extent that the sample selection focused on in the study
was prior to the management strategies being implemented.
Should favorable results be drawn at the end of the semester, the next action would be to
share those results with fellow teachers who also utilize technology in the classroom. One way in
which technology management may be improved is to revisit the technology use plan that the
school developed prior to the launch of the 1:1 iPad initiative. Should the data be strong enough
at the end of the semester, a recommendation will be made to the Technology Leadership Group
to consider making revisions to the Acceptable Use Policy that the school currently asks students
to follow. By including some or all of the expectations and consequences that were included in
the agreement that was utilized in the study, and following through with them, teachers may find
technology easier to manage in their own classrooms.
Another group to share the results of the study with is the Observation Supervision
Evaluation Feeback (OSEF) committee. If increasing teacher proximity was shown to limit

35

distractions, increase engagement, and promote student achievement, the OSEF committee may
be more inclined to respond to individual teachers fluidity throughout their classrooms, and
make suggestions specific to proximity should they find a teacher lacks movement to and
between students.
Lastly, as promised, the students and parents who consented to being a part of this study
will be provided the results of both the five-week and semester-end study. These results, should
they continue to be promising, will hopefully encourage students to self-manage their technology
use and provide parents with the understanding that their students achievement can be
negatively and positively impacted by technology, but that it is how the students choose to use
that technology that makes all the difference.
Conclusion
Through this action research study it was found that implementing specific technology
management strategies in a classroom of high school junior physics students may not have had
an impact on student engagement, but that it did have a positive effect on student achievement.
By presenting students with a clear technology use plan, prompting students at the beginning of
each class to access the class website to review the days agenda and identify the days
technology use expectations, and by increasing teacher proximity to students during class, ten of
eleven students saw improvements in homework and classwork averages, all eleven students saw
improvements in quiz and text averages, and the class averages for the eleven students saw
improvements in each of the aforementioned categories. The management strategies created
structure and organization in the classroomspecifically around iPad usepromoting on-task
behaviors by students (Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2015). Through a student survey, students
reported decreasing their off-task use of technology as a result of the interventions, but without

36

any change in their level of engagement in the class. Teacher observation provided support to the
decreased off-task use; however, teacher observation also noted that students appeared to be
more engaged in class. Afterall, students spent more time being on task on their devices, which
suggests they were more engaged because they have been conditioned to absorb information
from screens and not pages (Bester & Brand, 2013). Moving forward, the technology
management strategies will continue to be implemented in the students classroom to decrease
the distraction that technology can provide to students, limiting off-task use, and supporting
learning. As a result, it is expected that student achievement will continue to improve. If students
do not continue to show academic improvement, it will need to be reconsidered if the strategies
are ineffective due to inconsistent implementation, or if additional or alternate strategies may be
necessary to explore. Results will be shared with other high school junior science teachers who
expect to reap the benefits of school-issued devices in class, but find the access to technology to
be a distraction and hindrance to student learning and academic achievement.

References
37
Bester, G. & Brand, L. (2013). The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in
the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 22(2). Retrieved from http://www
.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/88399
Briere, D. E., Freeman, J., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Myers, D., Scott, T. M., Simonsen, B., Sugai,
G. (2014). Multitiered support framework for teachers classroom-management practices:
Overview and case study of building the triangle for teachers. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 179-190. doi: 10.1177/1098300713484062
Briesch, A., Fairbanks, S., Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). A review of evidence
-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice.
Education & Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351380. Retrieved from http
://dropoutprevention.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SolutionsFeb2011
SimonsenFairbanksBrieschMyersSugai2008.pdf
Bulut, O. & Delen, E. (2011). The relationship between students exposure to technology and
their achievement in science and math. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(3), 311-317. Retrieved from ERIC (EJ945004)
Csorny, L. (2013). Careers in the growing field of information technology services. U.S. Bureau
of Labor and Statistics, 2(9), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub /btn/volume-2
/pdf/careers-in-growing-field-of-information-technology-services.pdf
Elder, A. D. (December, 2013). College students cell phone use, beliefs, and effects on their
learning. College Student Journal, 47(4) 585-592. Retrieved from http://www
.projectinnovation.biz/csj_2006.html

Eyyam, R. & Yaratan, H. S. (2004). Impact of use of technology in mathematics lessons on
38
student achievement and attitudes. Social behavior and personality, 42, 31-42. Retrieved
from https://www.sbp-journal.com/index.php/sbp/article/view/3711
Faires, A., Robbins, M., Rollins, E., & Thornton, B. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone
may be distracting. Social Psychology, 45(6), 479-488. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000216
Fenn, K. M., Hambrick, D. Z., Ravizza, S. M. (2014). Non-academic internet use in the
classroom is negatively related to classroom learning regardless of intellectual ability.
Computers & Education, 78, 109-114. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.007
Grinager, H. (2006). How education technology leads to improved student achievement.
Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from https:
//www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/educ/item013161.pdf
Haughton, N. & Nworie, J. (September 2008). Good intentions and unanticipated effects: The
unintended consequences of the application of technology in teaching and learning
environments. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5),
52-58. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0197-y
Heitin, L. (2013, October 14). For teachers, wired classrooms pose new management
concerns. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/10/14/cm_wired.html
?tkn=YMNDOAqOA24oDI4vT/+sm9/ZSJdfRbDrv4Z8
Jaschik, S. (2013, October 21). Texting in class. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com
/news/2013/10/21/study-documents-how-much-students-text-during-class
Marchand-Martella, N. E. & Martella, R. C. (2015). Improving classroom behavior through
effective instruction: An illustrative program example using SRA FLEX literacy.

Education & Treatment of Children, 38(2), 241-271. Retrieved from ERIC
(EJ1070267)
Zepke, N. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning
in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177. doi: 10.1177/1469787410379680
39

Appendix A
Student Technology Use Agreement
40
Technology Expectations Mrs. Roches Junior Physics II

It is common knowledge that technology has been an integral component to many classrooms, but if not managed
appropriately, technology may be more of a distraction than a tool to boost academic achievement. iPads in Mrs. Roches junior
physics class are expected to be used regularly for viewing of video lectures, completing and submitting assignments, and some
assessment taking. However, students also use the iPads, and some even use their personal cell phones and laptops, for non-class
related purposes throughout the period. Research indicates that students abilities to pay attention may be hampered by multitasking with devices such as iPads, cellphones, and laptops.
In an effort to utilize the positive influences technology can have on student learning, a more specific set of technology
expectations is being put in place to limit the distractions that iPads and cell phones can provide, all in an effort to increase student
engagement. Students are expected to follow the Technology Use Plan described below; however, if students choose not to follow
the plan, they must be prepared to accept the consequences as described. Remember, the ultimate consequence of distraction is
disrupted learning.
Technology Use Plan
The following expectations apply to each student enrolled in Mrs. Roches Junior Physics II class:
Students are to place personal cell phones in designated slots within a visible organizer at the beginning of class;
Students are to place personal laptops in backpacks at the beginning of class, where the laptops shall remain unless
permitted by the teacher;
Upon entering class, students are to close all applications on their school-issued iPad and navigate to the class website to
review the days agenda;
Once the agenda has been reviewed, students are to lock their iPad and cover it with the school-issued case, and leave it
on their desk until it becomes a required tool during class;
When iPads are required for use during class, only the application designated by the agenda or teacher is to be accessed.
The following consequences will be issued should the technology plan not be followed:
For a first offense, if a personal cell phone is being used, the cell phone will be placed on the teachers desk until the end
of the class;
For a second offense, the cell phone will be placed on the teachers desk until the end of the class at which point it will
be turned into the deans office until the end of the day and the teacher will notify the students parent or guardian. The
cell phone will be required to be put in the visible organizer every day.
For any future offense, the cell phone will be placed on the teachers desk until the end of the class and the student will
be issued a thirty-minute teacher detention and the teacher will notify the students parent or guardian.
For a first offense, if a school-issued iPad is being used for non-class related purposes, the teacher will issue the student
a warning.
For a second offense, if a school-issued iPad is being used for non-class related purposes, the teacher will issue the
student a thirty-minute teacher detention and the teacher will notify the students parent or guardian.
In any event that a student does not serve his/her thirty-minute teacher detention, the students parent or guardian will be
notified, and the student will be referred to the deans office and issued a one-hour office detention.
I acknowledge the expectations of the Technology Use Plan as they are designed to assist in the implementation of
Thorntons Acceptable Use Policy and Expected Behavior as referenced in the 2015-2016 Student Handbook. I am aware that
failure to adhere to these expectations may not only infringe upon my/my childs educational opportunities in class, but also result
in the consequences as detailed above.
Student Printed Name
Parent/Guardian Printed Name

Student Signature
Date
Parent/Guardian Signature
Date

Appendix B
Classroom Map
41

Appendix C
Student Technology Use and Engagement Pre-Study Survey
Please complete this survey prior to more effective technology and classroom management strategies being
implemented.
1. Do you own a personal cell phone?
Yes
No
2. Do you bring your personal cell phone to physics class?
Yes
No
3. On average, how often do you use your cell phone for class-related activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
11-20 times More than 20
4. On average, how often do you use your cell phone for non-class activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
5. If you use it for non-class activities, why do you use your cell phone in physics class?
Texting
Checking time
e-mail
social networking
web surfing
games
translating
6. How do you believe the use of your cell phone impacts your learning?
It has a negative impact
No impact
It has a positive impact
7. How often do you bring your school-issued iPad to physics class?
Every day
I rarely ever have it, but sometimes do.
I usually always have it, and occasionally do not.
Never
8. On average, how often do you use your school-issued iPad for class-related activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
9. On average, how often do you use your school-issued iPad for non-class activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
10. If you use it for non-class activities, why do you use your school-issued iPad in physics class?
Texting
Checking time
e-mail
social networking
web surfing
games
translating
No impact
12. Engagement is a general term that refers to how a student participates during classroom instruction, and is
comprised of passive (e.g., listening to a teacher) and active (e.g., writing, answering a question) behaviors
(Briesch et al., 2008). With this definition of student engagement, to what extent do you agree with the
following statement?
I am engaged in my physics class.
Strongly disagree.
Disagree.
Agree.
Strongly agree.
42

Appendix D
Student Technology Use and Engagement Post-Study Survey
Please complete this survey prior to more effective technology and classroom management strategies being
implemented.
1. Do you own a personal cell phone?
Yes
No
2. Do you bring your personal cell phone to physics class?
Yes
No
3. On average, how often do you use your cell phone for class-related activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
4. On average, how often do you use your cell phone for non-class activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
5. If you use it for non-class activities, why do you use your cell phone in physics class?
Texting
Checking time
e-mail
social networking
web surfing
games
translating
No impact
7. How often do you bring your school-issued iPad to physics class?
Every day
I usually always have it, and occasionally do not.
I rarely ever have it, but sometimes do.

Never
8. On average, how often do you use your school-issued iPad for class-related activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
9. On average, how often do you use your school-issued iPad for non-class activities during physics class?
0 times 1-3 times
4-10 times
10. If you use it for non-class activities, why do you use your school-issued iPad in physics class?
Texting
Checking time
e-mail
social networking
web surfing
games
translating
No impact
12. How committed were you to following the expectations that were outlined for you in the Student
Technology Expectations document?
Very committed/My technology use changed completely.
Somewhat committed/My technology use changed somewhat.
Not committed/I didnt change my technology use at all.
13. Engagement is a general term that refers to how a student participates during classroom instruction, and is
comprised of passive (e.g., listening to a teacher) and active (e.g., writing, answering a question) behaviors
(Briesch et al., 2008). With this definition of student engagement, to what extent do you agree with the
following statement?
I am engaged in my physics class.
Strongly disagree.
Disagree.
Agree.
Strongly agree.
43

Appendix E
Off-Task Behavior Teacher Rating
Student
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Pre-Study Rating
Post-Study Rating
Likert Scale
Daily frequency of teacher prompts to disengage from off-task technology behavior.
0 - Never
1 Very Rarely
2 - Rarely
3 - Occasionally
4 Very Frequently
44

Appendix F
Student Grades/Averages Pre- and Post-Study
45
Pre-Study
STUDENT
HW1
HW2
CW1
CW2
HW3
Quiz 1
CW3
HW4
CW4
CW5
HW5
CW6
HW6
CW7
Quiz 2
HW/CW
AVERAGE
QUIZ/TEST
AVERAGE
Class Avg
Post-Study
STUDENT
HW7
Quiz 3
CW8
CW9
HW8
HW9
HW10
CW10
CW11
Test 1
HW/CW
AVERAGE
% Increase
QUIZ/TEST
AVERAGE
% Increase
Class Avg

Appendix G
Teacher Logbook
46
Type of Off-task Use

Date
3/1/16
3/3/16
3/7/16
3/9/16
3/11/16
3/15/16
3/17/16
3/21/16
3/23/16
3/25/16
3/29/16
3/31/16
Student(s)
Device(s)
Type(s) of Off-Task Use

Lrocheactionresearch

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lrocheactionresearch

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Running

head: IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

Improving Classroom Management of Technology to Improve Student Performance

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

Technology is becoming an essential tool in todays classrooms. Nowadays, it is an

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

increase in student engagement.

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

Technology Expectations Mrs. Roches Junior Physics II

Student Printed Name

Parent/Guardian Printed Name

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

2. Do you bring your personal cell phone to physics class?

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

2. Do you bring your personal cell phone to physics class?

It has a positive impact

I rarely ever have it, but sometimes do.

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

IMPROVING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY

Type of Off-task Use

Type(s) of Off-Task Use

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi