USING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY: TO IMPROVE MATHEMATIC TEACHING IN KINDERGARTEN

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisor. This thesis does not include proprietary or

classified information.

Cristine Nicole Lanier

Certificate of Approval:

__________________________ __________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.Thesis Co-Chair and Associate Professor Thesis Co-Chair and Assistant ProfessorEducation Department Education Department

USING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY: TO IMPROVE MATHEMATIC TEACHING IN KINDERGARTEN

A thesis submitted

by

Cristine Nicole Lanier

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, GA

April 1, 2011

i

ABSTRACT

It has been debated that new technologies in our society today are robbing our young children of

developmentally appropriate learning skills. The purpose of this study was to investigate how

technology can be used effectively during mathematics in a kindergarten classroom. An action

research design approach was used during this study, which included a parent survey,

observational journal and pre/post test. The results of this study show that there is significance in

academic achievement when kindergarten students use technology in the classroom during math

activities.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….………i

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….ii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...……...iii

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….1 Significance of the Problem………………………………………………………………2

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………………2Focus Questions…………………………………………………………………………...4Overview of Methodology………………………………………………………………...5

Human as Researcher……………………………………………………………………..5

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………………………………………………......7

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………15Research Design………………………………………………………………………….15Setting……………………………………………………………………………………15Subjects and Participants…………………………………………..…………………….16Procedures and Data Collection Methods………………………………………………..16Validity and Reliability Measures……………………………………………………….19Analysis of Data………………………………………………………………………….21

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………………..23

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results………………………………………………….34Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………34Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….35Implications………………………………………………………………………………36Impact on Student Learning…………………………………………………………...…37Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….38

References……………………………………………………………………………………….39

Appendixes………………………………………………………………………………………42

iii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell.......................................................................................................................17

Table 4.1 Parent Survey Results…………………………………………………………………23

Table 4.2 Survey Question One Results…………………………………………………………24

Table 4.3 Survey Question Two Results…………………………………………………………24

Table 4.4 Survey Question Three Results………………………………………………………..25

Table 4.5 Survey Question Four Results……………………………………………………...…25

Table 4.6 Survey Question Five Results…………………………………………………………26

Table 4.7 Survey Question Six Results…………………………………………………………..26

Table 4.8 Survey Question Seven Results……………………………………………………….27

Table 4.9 Survey Question Eight Results………………………………………………………..27

Table 4.10 Survey Question Nine Results……………………………………………………....28

Table 4.11 Survey Question Ten Results………………………………………………………...28

Table 4.12 Dependent t-test Results……………………………………………………………..29

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

i

This study explored the effect technology has on a child’s academic achievement during their

early school years. Duhaney and Duhaney (2008) states that because the use of technologies has

become indelibly locked into the consciousness of some children, many families and others have

questioned whether they have lost the heart and soul of their children to these “finger pushing”

gadgets. In today’s technological advanced society, teachers are challenged to use computers

and other sources of media in a productive way to teach young learners. Haugland (1999) states

that some educators have feared that computers will push children or rob them of their

childhood. Educators and parents are concerned that computers can impair a child’s

development when introduced at a young age. During the course of this study, data will be

collected from parents regarding how much their children use technology at home vs. how much

time they spend engaging in developmentally appropriate activities. Duhaney and Duhaney

(2008) states that it is believed that the social skills that children need to adapt to society can be

best taught face to face. The messages relayed through computer-mediated communication have

been labeled by some as characteristically impersonal, cold, and unsociable relative to face-to-

face communication. (Duhaney, 2008) Technology has changed our society but not the modern

classroom remains the same. As teachers we need to adapt to the new learning styles of today’s

students. How does technology affect the mathematical achievement of students in

kindergarten?

Significance of the Problem

Research has shown that using technology efficiently in the kindergarten classroom,

along with developmental activities, has improved the learning environment and achievement of

ii

students (Haugland, 1999). Many educators and parents have been the victim of false

information on the benefits of technology in the classroom. Some believe that technology is

replacing many developmental skills that students learn at home and at school. Studies have

shown that technology is an important aspect of our society and learning improves when it is

incorporated into our schools’ curriculum on a daily basis. Using an interactive source of

technology, such as a Promethean Board, gives students who are inclined to learn using multiple

traditional methods the opportunity to learn more and develop skills for the future. The main

argument given for early stage learning is that technology should not be used with children at

such a young age because they are not developmentally able to grasp the concept of abstract

computer programs (Haugland, 1999). Many children are being left behind because their school

systems are not contributing to their access of technology in their education. We are teaching a

new generation of children who are growing up in a technologically advanced world and we as

educators must keep up with the times in our own practices.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The purpose of this study was to explore the ways that technology can be used in a

developmental appropriate way in a kindergarten classroom. Lincoln and Strommen (1992) state

that children are use to an environment where they control information flow and access, whether

through a video game controller, remote control, mouse, or touchtone phone. The ideals of a new

classroom where technology plays a key role in allowing children to access their own knowledge

with the social constructivist theory because children are able to use their prior experiences with

technology to explore and understand new concepts. In an environment where the students are

guiding the way to their own understandings, technology engages them and gives them the

immediacy they are use to in their everyday lives (Lincoln, 1992).

iii

This study on technology in the kindergarten classroom correlates to the LaGrange

College Education Department’s first tenet of the Conceptual Frameworks, enthusiastic

engagement in learning. Within this tenet, competency cluster 1.3: Knowledge of Learners, states

that the educator must understand how students learn and develop. Educators must also

understand how to provide diverse learning opportunities that support students’ intellectual,

social, and personal development based on students’ stages of development, multiple

intelligences, learning styles, and areas of exceptionality. Educators demonstrate the belief that

students can learn at high levels, and hold high expectations for all students. Educators also need

to understand how factors inside and outside of schools can influence the students’ lives and

learning experience (LaGrange College Education Department 2009). When using technology in

the kindergarten classroom, you must be able to adapt the activities to accommodate multiple

levels of learning. Children enter kindergarten on many different developmental levels and it is

important to understand what is needed to ensure the success of all students. This research will

help identify the effectiveness of using technology during mathematical activities in a

kindergarten classroom that reaches all levels of learning.

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ Proposition 1: teachers are

committed to students and their learning correlations with this study. The standard states that

educators are dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students. They believe all students

can learn and treat them equitably. Teachers recognize the individual differences that distinguish

their students from one another and they take account for these differences in their practice. They

understand how students develop and learn. They respect cultural and family different students

bring to their classroom. Educators are concerned with their students’ self-concept, their

motivation and the effects of learning on peer relationships. They are also concerned with the

iv

development of character and civic responsibility. By knowing the curriculum and how students

learn, teachers will be able to better understand what is needed to update our classrooms and use

technology effectively. Knowledge of multiple intelligences is a key factor in this study along

with an understanding of the different learning domains.

Focus Questions

Three questions were asked during this research to better understand the effects of

technology on kindergarten students.

Is there a significant difference between the achievement of kindergarteners who have

had access to technology at home compared to students who have not?

Is there a significant difference in development when using an Interactive technology in

the kindergarten classroom?

Is there significance in student engagement when teachers effectively use technology in

the classroom?

v

Overview of Methodology

This research took place at an elementary school in a western Georgia county with a class

of kindergarten students ranging in ages from 5 to 6 over the course of one school year. An

action research design was used for this study. A parent survey, reflective journal and pre and

post tests were the methods used to answer the above stated focus questions. Qualitative data

were analyzed by looking for trends and patterns in observations. The quantitative date were

analyzed using Chi Squared formula and a dependent t-test.

Human as Researcher

As an educator for eight years, I have taught at schools where technology was not a

priority and was not a classroom element that was important to parents. I have also been at

schools where technology was at the top of the list when it came to classroom instruction. During

my years as a teacher, I have seen the positive effects that technology has had on kindergarten

students’ achievement levels. Computers, Promethean Boards, and other sources of media have

created new learning tools that are helping to prepare our students at an early age for the

technologically advanced society we now live in. I have seen first hand in my classroom that

when technology is balanced with traditional classroom activities, students achieve more.

I am biased against the opinion that technology is a classroom tool that is robbing our

students of developmental activities. As teachers, we have a job to educate and apply real world

situations in our classrooms. Since technology, is part of our everyday lives it should also be part

of our daily teaching strategies. For the past two years, I have been given the opportunity at my

current school to include much more advanced technology into my daily routine. I understand

the benefits of technology in the classroom and long to find new ways to use it. In today’s

vi

society, educators and parents must make changes in their everyday lives to prepare students for

the world of technology they will be apart of today and in the future.

vii

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Somekh, Mavers and Lewin (2002) states that, computers have had impacts on ways of

working and thinking that have brought about significant changes in people’s professional and

personal lives. Over the past decade, technology has increased and changed in our society but not

much has changed in educational practices. Teachers, parents, and others in our communities

need to be mindful of the importance of technology in our schools. The articles found in the

literature support and challenge the focus questions stated above. They range from informing

parents and teachers how to link school and home technology experiences to how technology has

changed today’s classroom.

The Impact of Home Computer Use

The increasing amounts of time children are spending on computers at home and school

has raised questions about how the use of computer technology may make a difference in their

lives—from helping with homework to causing depression to encouraging violent behavior

(Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross 2000). Many questions have been asked by parents

and educators alike about how technology affects our children today. Their concerns are

justifiable because technology is constantly changing and there is not a lot of research to back up

either the positive or negative affects. Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, and Gross (2000)

states, when children use home computers instead of watching television, it is generally viewed

as positive; but when children use computers instead of participating in sports and social

activities, it raises concerns about the possible effects on their physical and psychological well-

being.

viii

Due to the lack of knowledge, many parents are exposing their young children to

computers before they are developmental ready. According to Susan Haugland (2000),

computers simply do not match their learning style. Children younger than three learn through

their bodies: their eyes, ears, mouths, hands, and legs. Young children are explores and need the

tools and time to access their own knowledge. As Haugland states technology is a great tool for

children to use to gain knowledge.

Research has show that 3- and 4-year-old children who use computers with supporting

activities that reinforce the major objectives of the program have significantly greater

developmental gains when compared to children without computer experiences in similar

classrooms-gains in intelligence, nonverbal skills, structural knowledge, long-term

memory, manual dexterity, verbal skills, problem solving, abstraction, and conceptual

skills (Haugland, 2000, p. ).

Linking Home and School

The Vermont Institute for Science, Math and Technology (VISMT) conducted a study on

the impact of technology in Vermont schools and states that students learn more when parents

and other community members support children’s education and are involved in their local

school (Hyjek, Gilbert, Graham, et al., 1998). Technology has been present in our homes and

classrooms for decades but it has only been in the past few years that it has replaced many

traditional ways of completing day to day activities. Hyjek, et al. (1998) states that some people

are put off by technology while others are excited by it. They also say that some feel it has little

place in a classroom while others cannot image a classroom without it. Technology plays a key

role in equalizing the resources that students across the country are able to access. The

ix

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in England, UK conducted an exploratory study on

linking home and school using technology in 2001. In their findings, they came to the conclusion

that the most obvious barrier to linking home and school through technology is clearly the

absence of computers and internet links in students’ homes (Somekh, Mavers & Lewin, 2002).

The DfES distributed questionnaires and surveys throughout their study to schools and

households across the UK and they found that many participants were involved in special

initiatives to develop links between home and school with technology (Somekh, et al., 2002).

Such initiatives included laptop loan schemes, virtual classrooms, homework guidance on

the web, emailing parents, emailing homework to teachers, parent clubs, home access to

school servers, online tutoring, parental access to school attendance registers via the

Internet and online conferencing for parents and school governors. (p.1)

Effectively Integrating Technology

The principles of education have remained primarily the same for many decades but once

technology was introduced as an educational tool, educators have been asking the question of

how to effectively incorporate it into their daily activities. The shift from teacher-centered to

learner-centered education does not suggest that the teacher is suddenly playing a less important

role. A teacher is equally crucial and valuable in the learner-centered context, for he or she

creates and structures what happens in the classroom (Tapscott, 1999). Many educators have

concerns that students will miss out on developmentally appropriate activities but the solution is

not to exclude our practices but to integrate technology into what we are already doing in our

classrooms. Murphy, DePasquale, and McNamara (2003) state that visions of programmed

instruction and electronic worksheets have caused teachers to fear that children will miss out on

x

key experiences that support their development if computer technology infiltrates teaching. The

key to effectively including technology into the curriculum is to choose developmentally

appropriate software to use in your classroom. Cooper (2005) states,

If a child is working in a digital environment, there may be links throughout which he

must move, and he must understand the process and progression of moving through these

links to the next appropriate screen for information. Developmentally appropriate digital

environments for young children support the accomplishment of these steps. Programs

that read aloud in a clear, well-paced voice help young readers attach sounds to letters,

syllables, and words. (p.292)

Technology and Curriculum

Today’s child is brought up in the omnipresence of technology. A child may be exposed

to digital technology even before he or she is exposed to books. Whereas the child of the recent

past may have needed an introduction to computers and digital information upon beginning

formal schooling, these things have very likely been a part of life for today’s child from the

beginning (Cooper, 2005). As educators, we must find ways to include the fast pace of

technology into our everyday curriculums to make sure that all students reach their full potential

in our technically advanced society. The question that has been frequently asked is how do we

teach developmentally appropriate material in our classrooms and incorporate technology.

Effectively integrating technology into the curriculum demands effort, time, commitment and

sometimes, even a change in one’s beliefs (Clements, 2000). Technology has always been

around in the classroom from the pencil sharpener to the overhead projector and over the years

educators have adapted to these subtle changes. Computers and the interactive board technology

xi

is also another tool for teachers to use to create differentiated instruction into their own

classrooms. Technology applications should be among the many tools at teachers’ disposal to

offer children meaningful learning opportunities. At the same time, children need to learn to use

technology in the same way they learn everything else, in their own time and at their own pace

(Murphy et al., 2003).

Teacher Knowledge

The current generation of students has been referred to as the “Net Generation” due the

fact that they have grown up around digital media. With new technologies, educators will have to

shift their traditional teaching practices to incorporate technology. The shift from teacher-

centered to learner-centered education does not suggest that the teacher is suddenly playing a less

important role. A teacher is equally crucial and valuable in the learner-centered context, for he or

she creates and structures what happens in the classroom (Tapscott, 1999). The Centre for

Science and Technology Education Research at the University of Waikato completed a study

titled “Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in

Technology”. The focus was centered on New Zealand schools in 1999 where technology was

mandated as one of the seven essential learning areas. In the research project we strongly

emphasized the need for teachers to build a knowledge base for teaching technology (Jones and

Moreland, 2004). In order for educators to use technology effectively in their classrooms, they

must understand exactly what they are teaching and what key ideas translate best using

technology such as the computer or interactive board. Therefore to be effective in technology,

teachers will need to develop three dimensions of knowledge. These are knowledge about

xii

technology, knowledge in technology and general technological pedagogical knowledge (Jones

and Moreland, 2000).

Interactive White Board Use in Mathematics

A research team at Keele University in the United Kingdom focused on the effectiveness

of using an Interactive White Board (IWB) in both primary and secondary schools in

mathematics. The research team analyzed video-recorded lessons where the IWB was in use and

also interviews 36 teachers to gain their opinion on using the IWB in their own classrooms. After

analyzing their data, it was evident that there were three approaches to using the IWB that

teachers could be categorized in: supported didactic approach, interactive approach and the

enhanced interactivity approach. The supported didactic approach is teacher-centered where the

IWB is only used as a visual support to the lesson. In these situations the teacher was the focus

following traditional approaches with minimal pupil activity except in response to teacher

questioning or when completing written tasks (Glover, Miller, Averis and Door, 2007).

The interactive approach marks the progression from the supported didactic stage

because the IWB is used to challenge pupils using an assortment of different stimuli to reach

multiple learning styles in the classroom. Teachers become conversant with the technology and

its uses, marked by a tendency to further explore the potential of, for example, PowerPoint and

Excel, and to look for ways of using the IWB tools. The IWB becomes the focal point of pupil

attention whilst it is in use, using to illustrate, develop and test discrete concepts (Glover, Miller,

Averis & Door, 2007). Enhanced interactivity focuses on using technology as an integral part of

most lessons, and integrating concept and cognitive development in a way that exploits the

interactive capacity of the technology. Teachers who were using this approach were found to be

xiii

very fluent in technology and the capabilities to use it effectively in their lessons. Teachers who

reach this level of competence show considerably enhanced understanding of the learning

process, talk about the ways that technology can support learning, and show ingenuity in

developing materials to meet specific learning needs (Glover, Miller, Averis & Door, 2007). The

IWB gives teachers the ability to fully engage students in mathematics when the approaches

listed above are put into practice.

Cognitive Development and Technology

Teachers who take the time to understand the mathematical develop of a child before he

or she enters kindergarten can better prepare to be more effective in the classroom. According to

the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), educators’ goals should be to “create

a coherent vision of what it means to be mathematically literate both in a world that relies on

calculators and computers to carry out mathematical procedures and in a world where

mathematics is rapidly growing and is extensively being applied in diverse fields (Varol &

Farron, 2006). In the early elementary years, studies have shown that students age five to seven

need concrete experiences to help them understand mathematical concepts. Scholars agreed that

effective mathematics instruction in the elementary grades incorporates use of concrete

materials. Concrete materials make learning an engaging and fun activity (Varol & Farron,

2006).

In today’s classroom, teachers have more tools to help students understand

mathematically concepts and a balance of traditional and modern methods of teaching can help

students of all abilities. Varol and Farron (2006) state that teachers who use materials to enhance

their classrooms such as computers, calculators and other technology along with concrete

xiv

materials can connect material with effective and developmentally appropriate tasks in which

students can engage. Creating a meaningful experience in mathematics can increase the

students’ motivation and enable them to think about other mathematical ideas and their

application to the real-world (Varol & Farron, 2006).

xv

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The action research approach was used during this study. Lin Norton (2009) states that

the principle of pedagogical action research is very clear; it is to improve some aspect of the

student learning experience. Put more formally, the fundamental purpose of pedagogical action

research is to systematically investigate one’s own teaching/learning facilitation practice with the

dual aim of modifying practice and contributing to theoretical knowledge (Norton, 2009, p. xv).

During this study, my goal was to investigate my own teaching practices by using a reflective

journal, parent survey, state standardized test results and a pre / post test to discover the

effectiveness of using an interactive board in my kindergarten math class.

Setting

Newnan Crossing Elementary is one of 19 elementary schools in the Coweta County

School System. Newnan Crossing is a Title 1 school and is districted for many of Newnan’s high

income communities as well as low income apartments. At the time of this study, my school

served 950 students from preschool to5th grade. In the 2009-2010 school year, Newnan Crossing

served 905 students: 49% White, 31% Black, 8% Hispanic, 5% Multi-racial, 6% Asian and 1%

Other. Of these students, 42% percent were approved for free or reduced lunch. In the spring of

2008, Newnan Crossing Elementary was award the Platinum Award from the state for the

greatest gain in percentage of students meeting and exceeding standards. Our school has met

AYP consistently for 7 years and is considered a “Distinguished School.”

xvi

Subjects and Participants

My kindergarten class consists of 20 students: 9 boys and 11 girls from ages 5 to 6. Of

these 20 students, 5 did not attend pre-school last year. The racial makeup of my class is 9 Black,

5 White, 4 Hispanic, and 2 Multi-racial students. Within my class, I have one student who can

fluently speak Spanish. I have three students who are pulled out for EIP each day.

The developmental skills in my classroom range from learning letters to reading

independently. The Georgia Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (GKIDS) is given to

kindergarteners throughout the year to provide ongoing diagnostic information on each student.

This assessment is performed individually with each child and helps me to organize my flexible

groups. My class this year contains many average students who are excited about learning and

strive for excellence in their class work. By having high expectations and hard working students,

I am able to teach our standards and develop their knowledge of topics more extensively.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

A data shell (see Table 3.1) was used to organize this study by aligning the focus

questions with the literature, data collection methods, the type of validity, and how the data were

analyzed. By answering each focus question, the overarching research question was.

xvii

TABLE 3.1 Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Sources Data Sources

Why do these data answer the

question? (validity)

How are data analyzed?

Is there a significant difference between the achievement of kindergarteners who have had access to technology at home compared to students who have not?

Haugland, S. (2000)

Hyjek, P.Gilbert, A.Graham, C.Marsters, D.Reposa, J.Romond, B.Soule, C.Tuscany, B. (1998)

Somekh, B.Mavers, D.Lewin, C. (2002)

Subrahmanyam, K.Kraut, R. E.Greenfield, P.M.Gross, E.F. (2000)

Method: Parent Survey

Data Type: Ordinal

Construct Chi Square

Is there a significant difference in evelopment when using an Interactive technology in the kindergarten classroom?

Glover, D.Miller, D.Averis, D.Door, V. (2007)

Varol, F.Farran, D. (2006)

Method: Pre/Post Test

Data Type: Interval

content dependent t-test

Is there significance in student engagement when teachers effectively use technology in the classroom?

Clements, D. (2000)

Cooper, L.Z. (2005)

Jones, A.Moreland, J. (2004)

Murphy, L.K.DePasquate, R.McNamara, E. (2003)

Tapscott, D. (1999)

Method: Reflective Journal andObservations

Data Type: Qualitative

construct Coding to look for patterns or trends

xviii

During the course of this study, 20 kindergarteners were tested and observed for

academic achievement and engagement after using an Interactive Board during math. At the

beginning of week one, a pretest was administered as a baseline. A parent survey was also sent

home during this time to help build background knowledge of parents’ opinion and students’

access to technology prior to entering kindergarten. Over the course of two weeks, student

activities were designed to incorporate both traditional teaching methods and technology into the

math unit. During this time, a reflective journal was kept on student’s engagement in the lessons

and how they felt using technology. At the end of the two week time, a posttest was administered

and analyzed using a dependent t-Test for academic growth.

To determine if there is a significant difference between the achievement of

kindergartners who have had access to technology at home compared to students who have not, a

parent survey (see Appendix A), which consisted of ten questions directed at the parents’ own

knowledge of technology was distributed.

To answer focus question two, is there a significant difference in development when

using Interactive technology in the kindergarten classroom; a pre and post test was given

measure cognitive achievement in math. I used the chapter assessment from our Harcourt Math

series adopted by the county. Each student was given a five-question test from the Harcourt

Math series at the beginning of the Chapter. They then participated in a two-week math unit

focusing on numbers using both traditional teaching methods and an Interactive Board. At the

end of the unit, the same test was administered to measure student achievement when using an

Interactive board during our math chapter.

For focus question three, is there significance in student engagement when teachers

effectively use technology in the classroom, a reflective journal (see Appendix B) was kept by

xix

me. By using prompt questions for my journal, I was able to observe the increase in

mathematical achievement in students when technology is applied. The reflective journal was

completed within the two-week math unit. Four reflective journal entries were made during the

two-week math until to ensure that each child was observed. I focused on journal entries for five

students during each entry. The themes for the journal included success of the student, their

attitude, and ability to use technology to complete the math task. Each activity noted in the

journal entries were teacher created Interactive Board flipcharts made to fit the kindergarten

curriculum. Once the two-week unit was completed, the entries were examined for trends and

patterns to determine whether students’ engagement with technology affected their achievement.

I also made reflections on how the activity should be modified based on the findings during each

activity.

When deciding to use the assessment from our Harcourt Math series it was very

important that the test was user friendly for me as well as my students. In kindergarten, we are

more likely to give an individual or small group assessment so this test fit that criteria based on

its length and simple directions. The illustrations used were objects that the teacher could easily

identify to the children. For example, question five uses butterflies as an illustration so the

teacher may say, “please put your finger on the butterflies and listen for the next question.” The

students are familiar with butterflies so this task was easy for them.

Validity and Reliability Measures

For focus question one, the parent survey collected nominal data. Construct validity was

demonstrated through the use of this survey and evidence of validity is also known as a related-

measures study. In a related-measures study, we hypothesize that a given kind of relationship

xx

will be present between the assessment and the parent survey (Popham, 2008). The polytomous

items in the survey display internal consistency reliability through the use of Cronbach’s Alpha.

For focus question two, the research method used was a pre/post assessment. The test

was premade by Harcourt Math series, which was adopted by Coweta County, and is aligned

with the state kindergarten standards. The pre/post assessment gave interval data from a

dependent t-test. Salkind (2007) states that a t-test for dependent means indicates that a single

group of the same subjects is being studied, before and after the experiment. Content validity is

evident through the use of a published assessment that is Georgia Performance Standards based.

It refers to the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of the curricular

aim about which inferences are to be made (Popham, 2008). The quantitative data gathered has

stability reliability because the pre/post assessments were the same.

For focus question three, qualitative data were gathered from a reflective journal. Content

validity was evident in my reflective journal data. Popham (2008) states that the content of

curricular aims in which the teachers are interested can embrace knowledge, skills, or attitudes.

The qualitative data gathered is dependable and free of bias because data collection and

treatment were consistent. I also had control of the data collection setting and the length of time

for journal entries being persistent and using for consistency. To ensure there was no bias, I

monitored my entries for offensiveness, fairness, and disparate impact. The assessment

procedure used in this study contained no elements that would insult any group of test takers on

the basis of their personal characteristics, such as religion or race (Popham, 2008).

xxi

Analysis of Data

For the parent survey, the nominal data was entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet where a

Chi Square formula was used to determine if any of the questions were significant. Descriptive

statistics were also used to report the results.

For the Harcourt Math pre/ post assessment used to answer focus question two, a

dependent t-test was used to analyze the results from the pretest and posttest. The decision to

reject the null hypothesis has been set at p < .05.

For focus question three, qualitative data was gathered from a reflective journal. Over the

course of two weeks, journal entries were made on a pre-made form focusing on student

attitudes, achievement and understanding when using the Interactive Board during our math unit.

Entries were made each day during whole group instruction on the Interactive Board. Once the

two-week unit was completed, the entries were examined for trends and patterns to determine

whether students’ engagement with technology affected their achievement.

The dependability of my entire study was closely related to the concepts of accuracy and

consistency. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty review process ‘Consensual Validation,’ an

agreement among competent others that the description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic

are right. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) describe the cycling back to the literature review as

‘epistemological validation,’ where the study results are tied back to the theoretical perspectives

presented in the review of the literature.

Evidence of credibility in this research is evident with the use of multiple data sources.

Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence comes

together to form a compelling whole. Within Eisner’s definition are embedded the concepts of

fairness and precision. In order to be fair, my pre and post assessments were identical. Opposing

xxii

data sources, from my literature review, were also be included to insure fairness in my research.

Eisner refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit.’ To be precise, I gathered data from both a pre and

post assessment given to the same sample of students, from my parent surveys and from a

teacher’s perspective through a reflective journal.

The data and information collected during my research can easily transfer to another

content area and/ or grade level. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘referential adequacy’ where

perception and understanding by others will increase because of your research. Other educators

will be able to use my research in technology achievement and apply it to their needs. Catalytic

validity is the degree to which you anticipate your study to shape and transform your

participants, subjects or school. My study showed that effectively using technology in the

kindergarten classroom helped increase student achievement in math. I have translated this

finding into other aspects of our curriculum and have had very positive results. This evidence

could used on many levels within a school structure to increase student achievement.

xxiii

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Data were gathered from a kindergarten classroom over the course of a two-week math

unit. The subjects involved ranged from ages 5-6 years old and had all been in this kindergarten

classroom since the beginning of the school year. During the two-week research period, a pretest

and posttest were administered, a survey was sent home to parents and a daily journal was kept

to record observational evidence.

The ordinal data from the parent survey was entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet where a

Chi Square formula was used to find the significance of each question, as designated by the

asterisks. Table 4.1 shows the results.

Table 4.1 Parent Survey Results

Survey Questions 2 n=16 Survey Questions 2 n=16

Q1. Technology is critical to the learning experience of students. 15.875**

Q6. I use a computer in my profession.

10.25*Q 2. My student has strong technology skills. 11.5*

Q7. I assist my student in using the computer at home.

15.25**Q3. My student is encouraged to use technology at home to complete school projects. 8.375

Q8. I am comfortable learning and working with different technologies.

23.375***Q4. My child frequently uses technology at home to practice skills expected of his/her age level. 31.5***

Q9. My student’s access to technology in school is currently regular and adequate.

13.375**Q5. I have good computer skills.

15.875**

Q10. I would support additional funding for technology use with learning. 14.625**

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

4.2 Question 1: Technology is critical to the learning experience of students.

xxiv

Q1      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 4 3.2 25%Agree 9 3.2 56%Disagree 2 3.2 13%Strongly Disagree 1 3.2 6%No Opinion 0 3.2 0%Chi Square 15.875  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.00319 **  

The obtained value for question 1 was 15.875, which is more than the critical value of

13.28 at 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .01 level because p

< .01. The significance is evident at the “Agree” category of this survey question. The

probability is less than 1% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of answers is

equally distributed across all categories by chance alone.

4.3 Question 2: My student has strong technology skills.Q2      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 2 3.2 13%Agree 8 3.2 50%Disagree 4 3.2 25%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 2 3.2 13%Chi Square 11.5  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.02148 *  

The obtained value for question 2 was 11.5, which is more than the critical value of 9.49

with 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a significance at the .05 level because p < .05. The

significance is evident at the “Agree” category of this survey question. The probability is less

than 5% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of answers is equally distributed

across all categories by chance alone.

xxv

4.4 Question 3: My student is encouraged to use technology at home to complete school projects.Q3      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 2 3.2 13%Agree 7 3.2 44%Neutral 3 3.2 19% Disagree 0 3.2 0%Strongly Disagree 4 3.2 25%Chi Square 8.375  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.0788  

The obtained value for question 3 was 8.375, which is more than the critical value of 7.78

with 4 degrees of freedom. There is no strong significance evident in this survey question.

4.5 Question 4: My child frequently uses technology at home to practice skills expected of his/her age level.Q4      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 2 3.2 13%Agree 12 3.2 75%Disagree 2 3.2 13%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 0 3.2 0%Chi Square 31.5  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.00000 ***  

The obtained value for question was 31.5, which is more than the critical value of 13.28

with 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .001 level. The

significance is evident at the “Agree” category of this survey question.

xxvi

4.6 Question 5: I have good computer skills.Q5      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 8 3.2 50%Agree 6 3.2 38%Disagree 1 3.2 6%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 1 3.2 6%Chi Square 15.875  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.00319 **  

The obtained value for question 1 was 15.875, which is more than the critical value of

13.28 with h 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .01 level

because p < .01. The significance is evident at the “Strongly Agree” category of this survey

question. The probability is less than 1% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of

answers is equally distributed across all categories by chance alone.

4.7 Question 6: I use a computer in my profession.Q6      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 7 3.2 44%Agree 3 3.2 19%Disagree 5 3.2 31%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 1 3.2 6%Chi Square 10.25  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.03642 *  

The obtained value for question 2 was 10.25, which is more than the critical value of 9.49

with 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a significance at the .05 level because p < .05. The

significance is evident at the “Strongly Agree” category of this survey question. The probability

is less than 5% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of answers is equally

distributed across all categories by chance alone.

xxvii

4.8 Question 7: I assist my student in using the computer at home.

Q7      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 7 3.2 44%Agree 7 3.2 44%Disagree 1 3.2 6%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 1 3.2 6%Chi Square 15.25  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.00421 ***   

The obtained value for question 1 was 15.25, which is more than the critical value of

13.28 with h 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .01 level

because p < .01. The significance is evident at the “Agree” and “Strongly Agree” categories of

this survey question. The probability is less than 1% that any test of the null hypothesis that the

frequency of answers is equally distributed across all categories by chance alone.

4.9 Question 8: I am comfortable learning and working with different technologies.Q8      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 10 3.2 63%Agree 5 3.2 31%Disagree 0 3.2 0%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 1 3.2 6%Chi Square 23.375  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.00011 ***  

The obtained value for question 1 was 23.375, which is more than the critical value of

13.28 with h 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .01 level

because p < .001. The significance is evident at the “Strongly Agree” category of this survey

question. The probability is less than 1% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of

answers is equally distributed across all categories by chance alone.

xxviii

4.10 Question 9: My student’s access to technology in school is currently regular and adequate.Q9      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 5 3.2 31%Agree 8 3.2 50%Neutral 1 3.2 6% Disagree 0 3.2 0%Strongly Disagree 2 3.2 13%Chi Square 13.375  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.0096  **  

The obtained value for question 1 was 13.375, which is more than the critical value of

13.28 with h 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .01 level

because p < .01. The significance is evident at the “Agree” category of this survey question. The

probability is less than 1% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of answers is

equally distributed across all categories by chance alone.

4.11 Question 10: I would support additional funding for technology use with learning.Q10      Category Observed Expected PercentageStrongly Agree 5 3.2 31%Agree 8 3.2 50%Disagree 0 3.2 0%Strongly Disagree 0 3.2 0%No Opinion 3 3.2 19%Chi Square 14.625 ***  Chi Dist (Probability) 0.00555    

The obtained value for question 1 was 14.625, which is more than the critical value of

13.28 with h 4 degrees of freedom. Therefore, there is a strong significance at the .01 level

because p < .01. The significance is evident at the “Agree” category of this survey question. The

probability is less than 1% that any test of the null hypothesis that the frequency of answers is

equally distributed across all categories by chance alone.

xxix

For focus question two, is there a significant difference in development when using

Interactive technology in the kindergarten classroom, the data used were pre/post assessments.

The pre/post assessment gave interval data that was analyzed with dependent t-test. The pretest

was given to students at the beginning of the two-week math unit. Over the course of the unit,

students engaged in math activities using the Interactive Board. The posttest was given on the

last day of the unit. The tests scores were analyzed to determine if there was an increase or

decrease in academic developmental growth. A total of 20 kindergarteners were assessed during

this unit. The results were as follows:

Table 4.12 Dependent t-Test for pre/post test scores

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

  Pretest PosttestMean 3.5 4.45Variance 3.315789 0.786842Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.765732Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19t Stat -3.32878P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001764t Critical one-tail 1.729133P(T<=t) two-tail 0.003529t Critical two-tail 2.093024  

According the results of the dependent t-test, there was significance between the pretest

and posttest scores. The value needed for rejection of the null hypothesis is 1.729. The obtained

value calculated from these scores is 3.329. The results show significance at t(19) = 3.329, p < 0.5.

The obtained value (3.329) is greater than the critical value (1.729); the null hypothesis cannot

be accepted.

xxx

For focus question three, is there significance in student engagement when teachers

effectively use technology in the classroom, qualitative data were gathered from a reflective

journal. The reflective journal was completed with the two-week math unit. Four reflective

journal entries were made during the two-week math to ensure that each child was observed. I

focused on journal entries for five students during each entry. The themes noted in the journal

included success of the student, their attitude, and ability to use technology to complete the math

task. Each activity noted in the journal entries were teacher created Interactive Board flipcharts

made to fit the kindergarten curriculum.

Journal Entry #1 focused on students 1-5, who varied in academic levels. The activity

focused on number sense where the students had to count sets of various pictures and match

them to the corresponding number. The directions were given to the class as a whole and then

individual students were selected to come to the board and complete the activity. Student 1’s

attitude was very good when approaching the board. He used the Interactive pen to count the

objects. The class assisted him by counting along with him. Student 1 was successful with

matching the objects to their corresponding number. The students were encouraged to cheer for

him once his task was complete. Student 1 felt very successful and was very attentive and helpful

for the remainder of the activity. Student 2’s attitude was very good when approaching the board.

She used the Interactive pen to cross off objects as she counted. She succeeds in completing her

task. Student 3 was also excited about getting a turn to use the Interactive Board. She counted the

objects but had trouble finding the corresponding number. I cued her as to where she could look

in the room to identify her number. She quickly found the number wall and was successful in her

task. Student 4 had a great attitude when approaching the board. Her peers encouraged her by

helping her count out loud. She was successful at her task. Student 5 was very confident when

xxxi

approaching the board and asked the other students not to help him count. He succeeds at the

task and his correct answers were encouraged with cheers from his peers. All the students in

Journal Entry #1 had a good attitude, completed their tasks successfully, and had confidence in

using the Interactive Board.

Journal Entry #2 focused on students 6-10, who vary in academic levels. The activity

focused on number sense where the students had to count and label sets of various pictures with

the correct number. The directions were given to the class as a whole and then individual

students were selected to come to the board and complete the activity. Student 6 was excited as

she approached the board. She quickly counted and labeled her set without any assistance. The

other students congratulated her by clapping. Student 7 quickly approached the board, he even

stated that “this is way easy.” He used the pen to cross off objects he was counting and then

labeled his set. This student was very successful and was excited to show the other students how

to solve the problem. Student 8 was very similar to student 7 so I challenged her to teach the

others how to count correctly and label sets. She was very excited about her added task and

completed it successfully. The other students also enjoyed being taught by a fellow peer. Student

9 successfully completed her task and was excited when others cheered for her because she was

correct. Student 10 successfully completed his task, had a great attitude and enjoyed using the

Interactive board. The students in Journal Entry #2 had a good attitude, completed their task

successfully, and had confidence in using the Interactive Board.

Journal Entry #3 focused on students 11-15, who vary in academic levels. The activity

focused on number sense where the students had to identify the ordinal position of objects on the

flipchart. The directions were given to the class as a whole and then individual students were

selected to come to the board and complete the activity. Student 11 was very excited to use the

xxxii

Promethean board. He came up to the front of the class with a big smile on his face. When asked

to point out which object was fifth, he quickly counted and pointed to the correct answer. He

completed his task successful and was encouraged by his peers clapping. Student 12 was excited

to come up to the board. When given her task, she froze up and was unable to answer. She was

given the opportunity to ask a friend for help. She chose a friend who assisted her in counting

and finding the correct answer. The class supported her by cheering. She sat back down on the

rug with a smile on her face. Student 13 was able to successfully complete his task and was

encouraged by his peers. Student 14’s attitude towards using the board was good and she

successful completed her task. Student 15 was very excited to finally have a turn at the board

activity. He quickly came up and identified his ordinal position correctly. The students in Journal

Entry #3 had a good attitude, completed their task successfully, and had confidence in using the

Interactive Board.

Journal Entry #4 focused on students 16-20, who varied in academic levels. The activity

focused on number sense where the students had to identify the ordinal position of objects on the

flipchart. The directions were given to the class as a whole and then individual students were

selected to come to the board and complete the activity. Student 16 had a great attitude when

approaching the board, completed task successfully without help and was encouraged by other

peers. Student 17 was excited to have a turn using the Interactive Board. He completed his task

with the assistance of other students. They helped him count the objects and figure out which

object was in 6th place on the board. He was encouraged by his peers and had a smile on his face

when he sat down. Student 18 approached the board quickly and successful chose the correct

answer without any help. He made the comment that he was smart and could do this activity real

fast! Student 19 had a great attitude about using the board and successfully completed her tasks.

xxxiii

Student 20 was assisted by the class. The students helped her count out the objects using ordinal

vocabulary. Once the class reached her object in the counting, the students allowed her the

chance to say the answer aloud. She was successful and encouraged by her peers. The students in

Journal Entry #4 had a good attitude, completed their task successfully, and had confidence in

using the Interactive Board. Over the course of two weeks, all students were activity engaged in

using the Interactive Board throughout the day. Our Interactive Board is a great way to

differentiate instruction across the curriculum.

xxxiv

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSSION OF RESULTS

An action research design was used in this study. Both qualitative and quantitative data

was gathered with a pre/post test, parent survey, and reflective journal. I, the researcher, looked

back over the parent survey, the pre and post assessment and the reflective journal to view the

outcome of the results and their alignment with my three focus questions of this study. The

parent survey was analyzed using a chi square to discover any significance in the results. Pre and

post assessment data, taken from the Harcourt Math series, were analyzed by a dependent t-test

to answer focus question two. The reflective journal results were analyzed for patterns and trends

to support focus question three.

Analysis

For focus question one, is there a significant difference between the achievement of

kindergarteners who have had access to technology at home compared to students who have not,

I used a parent survey containing ten questions. The ordinal data from the parent survey was

entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet where a Chi Square formula was used to find the

significance of each question. Strong significance was found in 90% of the parent survey

questions, which indicated that there was strong parent support within my classroom before

beginning my study. This finding supports the Vermont Institute for Science, Math and

Technology study that found that students are more successful with technology when parents and

community members support education (Hyjek et al., 1998). The results clearly show that my

parents do support technology in schools.

For focus question two, is there a significant difference in development when using an

Interactive technology in the kindergarten classroom, I used a pre and post assessment from the

xxxv

county adopted Harcourt Math series. I analyzed the data to determine if there was any growth in

learning during the two week study. According to the results, there was significance between the

pre and post test scores. The results show significance at t(19) = 3.329, p < 0.5.; the null hypothesis

cannot be accepted. Therefore, the difference in test scores is due to a certain factor. the use of

the Interactive Board may increase scores. These results support Varol and Farron (2006) who

stated that teachers who use materials to enhance their classrooms such as computers, calculators

and other technology along with concrete materials can connect material with effective and

developmentally appropriate tasks in which students can engage.

For focus question three, is there significance in student engagement when teachers

effectively use technology in the classroom, qualitative data were gathered from a reflective

journal (Tapscott, 1999). states that the shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered education

does not suggest that the teacher is suddenly playing a less important role. A teacher is equally

crucial and valuable in the learner-centered context, for he or she creates and structures what

happens in the classroom.

Discussion

The multiple sources used in this study show that it is well-founded and provides

compelling reasons to accept its conclusions. The dependability of my entire study relates to the

concepts of accuracy and consistency. Eisner (1991) calls the faculty review process ‘Consensual

Validation,’ an agreement among competent others that the description, interpretation, evaluation

and thematic are right. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) describe the cycling back to the literature

review as ‘epistemological validation,’ where the study results are tied back to the theoretical

perspectives presented in the review of the literature.

xxxvi

Evidence of credibility in this research is evident through the pre/post test assessment

given from the Harcourt Math series. The same assessments were given at the beginning and end

of the study period. The results of these test show that students’ academic achievement increased

when technology was incorporated into the lessons. These results are not surprising and reinforce

that teachers have to modify their traditional teaching methods and invent new ways to reach our

technology savvy students. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration,’ where a

confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole. Within Eisner’s definition

are embedded the concepts of fairness and precision. In order to be fair, my pre and post

assessments were identical. Opposing data sources, from my literature review, were also

included to insure fairness in my research. Eisner refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit.’ To be

precise, data from the pre/post test were used in a dependent t-Test and the survey questions

were tested for significance using Chi Square. Academic growth was evident in the dependent t-

Test, which had a 19% increase between the pre and posttest. I have witnessed academic growth

and engagement during our math lessons when technology was incorporated. The students were

excited to use the Promethean Board during our lessons and showed interest in what was being

taught. I believe that a balance of tradition teaching methods and technology in today’s

classroom will keep students interested and excite to learn math concepts.

Implications

The results for this study showed academic growth in math. As stated in Focus Question

one, I expected the achievement of kindergarteners who have had access to technology at home

to be greater than students who have not. Strong significance was found in 90% of the parent

survey questions. This supports Hyjek et al.’s (1998) article about research that found that

students are more successful with technology when parents and community members support

xxxvii

education. The results from the pre/post assessment in this study also showed that over the

course of a two-week math unit, students gained understanding of the concept being taught with

technology being a differentiated factor used daily. The data and information collected during

my research can easily transfer to another content area and/ or grade level. Other educators will

be able to use my research in technology achievement and apply it to their needs. As an educator

who has access to the newest technology in my school, I find it easy to include technology into

my lessons. This advantage has helped my study. The catalytic validity of this study was evident

in my students’ growth. The success of my study shows that our society’s view on technology is

ever changing and that teachers have to adapt from traditional teaching methods to more

mainstream instruction, which includes technology.

Impact on Student Learning

I believe that this research, on the impact of technology in the kindergarten classroom,

will help educators and parents realize its positive affects on student achievement. The setting

for this research was an essential part of this study because kindergarten students from a range of

backgrounds and developmental levels will be included in testing. Kindergarten students with

different learning styles will greatly benefit from the findings of this study because educators and

parents will have the knowledge to see technology in its proper place and proper role; which is

not to replace learning primary skills, but to enhance them in the learning environment.

The ability to grasp technology is much more important in today’s world than it was

when current teachers and parents were beginning school. Children who do not start their

educational journey with technology as a part of a comprehensive curriculum may find

themselves robbed of the very tools that would make a huge difference for them as they continue

xxxviii

their education. Different learning styles create a challenge for teachers and parents, but with

appropriate integration of technology, some students may find that these new tools give them a

gateway to higher achievement and developmental skill they never would have found had they

never had this exposure. Other students who may not have the same predilection for learning

with technology will nevertheless gain confidence with tools that will be an increasingly greater

part of their lives as they continue through school and beyond.

Recommendations for Future Research

I would recommend that this research be done again in the future. I do believe that

students can achieve academic gain in all subject areas with the balance of traditional teaching

methods and the use of technology. As an educator who has prior knowledge and access to

technology, planning and implementing my math unit was not a challenge. Other educators may

find using technology challenging and almost impossible depending on the resources available to

them. However, with adequate resources, educators will be able to adapt this study to their own

classroom needs. For future studies, I would suggest lengthening the time to more than a two-

week unit. By doing this more data can be collected and more time provided to get students use

to using technology during their instructional time. The researcher would also be able to focus on

individual students in a reflective journal, which could give more insight on student attitudes and

achievement. Clements (2000) believes that effectively integrating technology takes time,

commitment, and sometimes a change in one’s own beliefs.

xxxix

References

Clements, D. (2000). First experiences in science, mathematics, and technology.

Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/

online/experience/clements.htm.

Cooper, L. Z. (2005). Developmentally appropriate digital environments for young

children. Library Trends, 54(2), 286-302.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Duhaney, D. B. & Duhaney C.D. (2008). Technology and young children revisited.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 35, 455-463.

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillian.

Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D. & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective

pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern

languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media and

Technology, 32(1), 5-20.

Haugland, S. W. (1999). What role should technology play in young children’s learning?

Young Children, 54(6), 26-31.

Haugland, S. W. (2000). Computer and young children. Retrieved June 16, 2008,

from http://www.education.com/print/Ref_Computers_Children/.

Hyjek, P., Gilbert, A., Graham, C., Marsters, D., Reposa, J., Romond, B., Soule, C., &

Tuscany, B. (1998). Technology in the classroom: computers and instruction in

Vermont’s schools. Vermont Institute for Science Math & Technology, 2-16.

xl

Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’

pedagogical content knowledge in technology. International Journal of Technology

and Design Education, 14, 121-140.

Johnson, B. (2008). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed

approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In

N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and

issues (pp. 260-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

LaGrange College Education Department (2009). The conceptual framework

undergirding professional education programs. LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College.

Murphy, L.K., DePasquate, R., & McNamara, E. (2003). Meaningful connections: using

technology in primary classrooms. Beyond the Journal, November, 1-9.

Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning [electronic resource]: A

practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.).

Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Somekh, B., Mavers, D., & Lewin, C. (2002). Broadening access to the curriculum

through using technology to link home and school: a critical analysis of reforms to

improve educational attainment for all k-12 students. American Educational Research

Association. 1-21.

xli

Strommen, Erik F. & Lincoln, Bruce. (1992, August). Constructivism, technology, and

the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24, 466-476.

Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut R.E., Greenfield, P.M., & Gross, E.F. (2000). The impact of

home computer use on children’s activities and development. Children and Computer

Technology, 10(2), 123-144.

Tanner, D. (2001). Assessing academic achievement. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the net generation. Educational Leadership, Feb., 7-11.

Varol, F. & Farran, C. (2006). Early mathematical growth: how to support young

children’s mathematical development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6),

381-387.

xlii

Appendix A

Parent Technology SurveyNewnan Crossing Elementary

20010-2011

Child’s Name: ______________________________Child’s Birthday: ____________________________

How many computers are in your house? _________At what age did you child begin using the computer? _______How many hours does your child spend on the computer each week? ________

Please take the time to respond to the survey questions. Please only choose one answer for each question. Once you have completed the survey, please return it to your child’s teacher. Thank you.

No Opinion Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree1. Technology is critical to the learning experience of students.2. My student has strong technology skills.3. My student is encouraged to use technology at home to complete school projects.4. My child frequently uses technology at home to practice skills expected of his/her age level.5. I have good computer skills.6. I use a computer in my profession. 7. I assist my student in using the computer at home.8. I am comfortable learning and working with different technologies.9. My student’s access to technology in school is currently regular and adequate.10. I would support additional funding for technology use with learning. Total:

Thank you!

xliii

Appendix B.

Observational Journal

Date: ________________________Standard: _____________________Description of Interactive Board activity: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Student Success Comments

Teacher’s reflection of activity: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________