Technology Integration and its Impact

On Student Participation in the

Classroom

by

Jody Schmidt

A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Master of Science Degree

In

Education

Approved: n (enter appropriate #) Semester Credits

Dr. Jim Lehmann

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

May, 2011

1

2

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI

Author: Schmidt, Jody A.

Title: Technology Integration and its Impact on Student Participation in the

Classroom

Graduate Degree/Major: MS Education

Research Advisor: Dr. Jim Lehmann

Month/Year: May, 2011

Number of Pages: 23

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th

edition

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze technology use in middle school math classes to

determine how its use affected participation rates. This study includes data collected from four

eighth grade math classes, two in which technology was used and two where it was not, for

comparison purposes.

Evidence from this study will be used to encourage instructors to include appropriate

forms of technology in their classrooms with the hopes of increasing participation rates and

engaging students.

3

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI

Acknowledgements

I would like to give a special thanks to my husband, Dean, who supported me throughout

graduate school. He encouraged me to go back to school and was a shoulder to lean on

throughout the last two years of hard work. I am grateful for all of his help.

I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Jim Lehmann, who was also my teacher for

Introduction to Research. His authentic teaching style and responsiveness to student issues and

concerns has helped tremendously.

4

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….. ……..2

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………6

Introduction………………...……………………………………………………………...6

Statement of the Problem…………………………….………………………….………...8

Research Objectives………………………………..…………………………….………..8

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………….…….……...9

Assumptions of the Study……………………………………………………………..…10

Limitations of the Study……………………………………………..…………………...11

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………….12

Introduction………………………………………………………...…………………….12

Impacts of Classroom Technology Use………………………………………………….12

Motivation………………………………………………………………………………..13

Multi-Sensory Opportunities……………………………………………………….........15

Promote Innovative Classroom Experiences………………………………………….....16

For Teachers……………………………………………..……………………….16

For Learners…………………………………………………..………………….17

Summary……………………………………………...………………………………….17

Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………………………...19

Selection and Description of the Sample……………………………………………...…19

Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………..........19

Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………………...…….20

5

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………...……………..20

Limitations……………………………………………………………………...………..20

Chapter 4: Results……………………………………………………………………………….22

Chapter 5: Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...24

References………………………………………………………………………………………..26

6

Chapter I: Introduction

In today‟s society, the use of technology is growing beyond what most people are even

able to keep up with. Not only do we need to prepare our students for learning in the Twenty-

First Century, but we need to prepare them for careers and life beyond school. The only way for

us to do that as teachers, is to keep up with new technology ourselves. To do this, we need to

include appropriate technology in our classroom and teach our students not only how to use it,

but why they are using it. According to an article on using technology to motivate students,

teachers need to make sure that the activities provided are stimulating and interesting to our

students. They must provide novelty and variety. Using different forms of technology is one

way to do this (“What Motivates Students?”, 2004).

The use of technology has an impact on how students learn as well as how engaged they

are in the learning process itself. Technology also provides the novelty and variety as mentioned

above. According to Prentice (2009), “Research from the Community College Survey of

Student Engagement (CCSE) shows that the more actively engaged students are…the more they

are likely to learn and achieve their academic goals” (p. 10). If technology can bridge the gap

between students who are engaged and students who are not, that could be one of the essential

keys that is missing in so many classrooms today. According to Taylor and Francis (2004),

“more learning occurred when technologies were integrated than when they were not, and

students evaluated the units as causing them to learn or discover a lot” (p. 134).

The use of Interactive Response Systems (IRS) in the classroom has also been proven to

be an effective tool in maintaining student attention and helping students remain engaged in

classroom content. According to Nagy-Shadman & Desrochers, “when learner participation is

built into a course, it is more likely that active learning will occur” (p. 2). When teachers are

able to make current technology, that forces participation, a part of their classrooms and lessons,

7

they are helping to engage students who may otherwise not care enough to pay attention on their

own. It is important to bridge those gaps between students and what gets in the way of their

learning. Technology can help teachers to do that.

Ideally, teachers integrate technology into their classrooms to impact the

effectiveness of their teaching. When technology is used appropriately, student learning

opportunities are increased and students are more prepared for a world which is full of

technology. Not only are teachers working hard to help them become independent learners, but

they are allowing students the opportunity to learn about the tools that will help make them

successful. It has been found that more learning occurs with the integration of technology than it

does without (Taylor, Castro, & Walls, 2004).

Today there are more and more teachers integrating technology in their classrooms and

weaving it into their curricular units. Unfortunately, there are some classrooms that do not have

the technology they need to provide students with the learning opportunities that would benefit

them the most. On the other hand, there are teachers that do have the technology, but either do

not know how to use it, or are using it just for the sake of using it.

Stressing the importance of technology and how to use it as a tool for both learning and

communicating is vital to the success of our students both in the classroom and beyond. The

students of today are using 21st century skills in their everyday lives and taking advantage of the

many different forms of technology, but some are not finding that same experience when they

walk into their classrooms. If we do not provide our students with the opportunities to work with

appropriate technology in our classrooms they will not be prepared to work and be involved in a

society that is turning to technology for almost everything.

According to Johnson and Lui (2000), the general goal of technology integration is to use

technology as a tool to improve teaching/learning (as cited in Liu & Johnson, 2001). By

8

integrating technology into core classes, not just computer classes, we can help prepare our

students for the 21st century and help increase student achievement and drive academic success.

Obtaining and using the appropriate technology, as well as making sure that teachers know how

to use it, will create meaningful learning experiences in the classroom. These experiences will

show students the importance of technology in their everyday lives, as well as keep them

interested and engaged in the content that is being taught. Students will be more successful on

the unit tests and the final exam at the end of the year, and will feel like they are a part of the

learning process, thus more interested and engaged.

Statement of the Problem

Many recent changes to the math curriculum and teaching style have caused students to

lost focus in class. Student participation rates and test scores are low. We have moved to a

problem-based, process driven math curriculum that focuses on concept understanding rather

than drill and practice activities. Students are not used to this and some are shutting down.

Teachers are looking for ways to motivate students and make math fun.

Motivation is at the heart of the amount of content students can master and can have a

direct impact on the amount of active learning that goes on in a given classroom. Using

technology as a part of a curriculum can help to motivate students by helping to create

stimulating activities that convey content in a particular area. The more interest that can be

created, the more engaged our students will be. The more engaged students are, the more they

tend to participate in class. Lack of motivation and participation can decrease a students‟ content

mastery because they find no value in what they are learning.

Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to measure the impact that technology has on student

participation, and therefore, the amount of active learning being done in the classroom. This

9

study will include data from four eighth grade math classes of approximately 27 students each.

Some of the classes will be taught with the described technology and some will not. Results of

each of the groups of classes will be compared to see if there is a direct correlation between the

technology used and the amount of participation that is occurring in the classroom throughout the

period.

The outcomes of the study will be used to encourage other teachers to use appropriate

technology in their classrooms because of the positive impact it has on how actively engaged

students are in our classes. The findings could also be a way to help our district see the

importance of promoting technology use in the classroom and work towards funding this

equipment so that it is available to our students and teachers.

Definition of Terms

Active Learning. This process refers to techniques where students do more than simply

listen to a lecture. Students are DOING something including discovering, processing, and

applying information. Active learning derives from two basic assumptions: (1) that learning is

by nature an active endeavor and (2) that different people learn in different ways (“Active

Learning”, 2010).

Smart Board. An interactive white board developed by Smart Technologies that works

in conjunction with the Senteo Response System.

Graphing Calculators. A handheld calculator that is capable of plotting graphs, solving

simultaneous equations, and performing numerous other tasks with variables. They contain a

large screen to visually represent graphs and tables.

Connected Math Project (CMP). A middle school math curriculum that is centered

around helping students develop understanding of important mathematical concepts, skills,

10

procedures, and ways of thinking and reasoning, in number, geometry, measurement, algebra,

probability and statistics (“Connected Math Project”, 2009).

Interactive Response System (IRS). Slain, Abate, Hodges, Stamatakis, and Wolak

(2004) describe an interactive response system as an electronic tool that provides instantaneous

feedback to facilitators and audience members about participant‟s responses to multiple choice

questions. The typical IRS system includes a computer and specific software, a projector and

screen, a radio signal receiver unit, or a directly wired receiver unit, and personal hand-held units

that are used by individual students to respond to questions.

Senteo. A type of interactive response system manufactured by SMART Technologies,

Inc. Can be used in conjunction with a Smart Board, or interactive white board.

Multi-Sensory Learning (MSL). The ability to learn by using multiple senses at once to

encode material.

Assumptions of the Study

This study assumes that the technology provided for student use will produce significant

changes in the amount of participation found in the control groups versus the test group. The

time frame for this study will be the length of one unit, although the technology will only be used

throughout that unit as deemed appropriate by the researcher/instructor. The technology should

not be overused (in this or other situations) or used in inappropriate situations, as that will cause

the technological situation to have a negative impact on the study and any results that are

analyzed. Participation will be randomly observed in both settings, but used throughout the unit

of study.

11

Limitations of the Study

The study will be limited to a select group of classes to be studied. The control groups

will be roughly the same size as the groups containing the technology variable. The research

done in this study will be limited to the information studied by the researcher. The data that is

being collected will be based on a small group of subjects and their participation will be

voluntary, although it is, in a way, a requirement of the course itself.

12

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter will review topics related to the advantages of technology us in the

classroom, as well as the impact that has on student engagement and participation. The effects of

participation will also be addressed.

Impacts of Classroom Technology Use

The inclusion of technology into our curriculum on a regular basis can seem like a

daunting task when first beginning the process. However, the benefits far outweigh the problems

or complications associated with this process. This must be looked at from not only the teacher‟s

perspective, but the students‟ as well, in order to understand how important it is and what

different aspects of a student‟s education it can have an impact on. Educators need to make the

necessary changes to be able to better prepare our students for their life experience beyond the

classroom (The Metiri Group, n.d.). In a recent report, the State Educational Technology

Directors Association (SETDA), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE),

and the partnership for 21st Century Skills called for a renewed focus on technology in education.

According to ISTE (2007), the report by these three groups called for action to be taken on three

fronts: “(1) use technology comprehensively to develop proficiency in 21st century skills, (2) use

technology comprehensively to support innovative teaching and learning and (3) use technology

comprehensively to create a robust education support systems” (para. 4). It would be great to

think this is already being done, but research shows that there are many barriers that prevent

teachers from integrating technology into their curriculum, which prevents frequency and

proficiency (Hew & Brush, 2007). In order to create an environment in which students can be

both interested and engaged, that needs to change.

13

The 21st Century Skills described above are separated into four categories: digital age

literacy, inventive thinking, interactive communication, and quality (The Metiri Group, n.d.).

These categories apply to all areas of study and the integration of technology within those areas.

In order to prepare our students for college, and careers beyond college, they need to be

comfortable transitioning into using new technology around every corner. The more they are

familiar with, and able to use, the easier they will be able to adapt to the path their career takes

them down.

The underlying purpose for including technology in the classroom is not only to provide

students with innovative experiences rich in twenty-first century skills, but also to make a deep

impact on what students learn and how much they learn. Emanuelsson & Sahlstrom (2008)

argue that “current and widely received participationist theories on learning seriously challenge

the relevance of current practices of teaching” (p. 220). They go on to explain that frontal

whole-class teaching, or direct instruction offers little room for class participation and may not

be the best way to reach students. It also does not foster an environment conducive to student

technology use and participation through technology, which has been shown to help learning and

engagement.

Motivation

Student engagement can enhance the motivation of students and their teachers (Skinner &

Belmont, 1993). When motivation is increased we also see an increase in content retention, so it

is important that we focus on what it is specifically that engages or motivates students.

According to The Teaching Professor (2004), in an article entitled What Motivates Students?,

“higher levels of interest and intrinsic motivation motivate students” (p. 7). Students use

technology in their everyday lives, outside of school. From cell phones and video games to web

based social networking sites. They don‟t use it because they have to, they use it because they

14

want to and it is available to them. The choice to use this technology outside of school should be

mirrored in school as an attempt to keep students interested and engaged. As stated earlier, this

interest is directly tied to motivation, something teachers strive for in all of their students.

In a study comparing the effects of participating in learning versus listening to learn, it

was found that students learn more by „doing‟ or by being actively engaged in the classroom

(Elliot, Rice, Trafimow, Madson & Hipshur, 2010). Students were more engaged when actively

participating and learned as much or more than when they were not.

Student participation fosters critical thinking and allows students to retain more

information (Weaver & Jiang, 2005). The research done by Weaver and Jiang suggests that

classroom organization and constraints put on participation have a direct link to the learning

done in a classroom. Students are more motivated to participate if they have a vested interest in

what is going on in the classroom. Adding technology to the mix is one way to increase that

motivation.

Problem-based learning, which has students investigate a topic by solving interesting

problems, is another strategy used to engage students. For example, when teaching students

about exponential relationships, using the story about a peasant requesting a reward of one penny

on the first square of a chess board, two on the second square, four on the next and so on, would

be an engaging, exponential scenario that you could use to build questions around. Students

would work to answer the critical questions surrounding this problem, while learning about

exponential relationships and their properties. This type of learning aims to teach students why

and how something works, as opposed to just memorizing facts and formulas. A study by

Harmer and Crates (2007) on learner engagement showed that students will remain truly engaged

in content if you “use technology to enrich data sources, resources and opportunities to connect

with the world outside the classroom” and “provide students with many options and choices as a

15

way to encourage their commitment” (p. 122). Technology rich situations for students provide

opportunities for them to engage in learning on many levels as well as to connect to the

technology of their time and utilize to solve problems in unique ways.

Multi-Sensory Opportunities

Another way to keep students interested in curriculum is to provide them with

multisensory opportunities (learning) (MSL). Advances in technology provide more chances for

MSL, which in turn, maximizes the effectiveness of teaching and learning (Tardi, Catarina, &

Goldstein, 2006). Multisensory learning is tied directly to motivation because it is another way

to keep students interested and engaged, thus more motivated. With all of the different types of

technology available, there are many different ways to provide these situations for students while

still meeting the needs of the curriculum. Choosing the appropriate MSL activities has an

important impact on the academic success of students (Tardi et al., 2006), and using it can help

provide innovative classroom experiences for both teachers and students.

Much more content can be covered in a short period of time with the right tools.

According to Drier, Dawson and Garofalo (1999), technology allows teachers and students to

explore topics that can be very time consuming because it can do much of the timely work for

you. Graphing calculators, for example, allow students to create and manipulate graphs in

seconds, which is much different than creating a graph by hand with paper and pencil. Students

can focus on the actual topics at hand, as opposed to the graph construction, which most often, is

not the focus of the lesson.

There are several pieces of technology that can be instrumental in providing rich

mathematical experiences in the middle school classroom. The graphing calculator and Senteo,

or an interactive response system (student remotes), allow teachers to attain student feedback

immediately. The interactive response system is a classroom set of student remotes that can be

16

used for students to answer questions that the teacher provides within the structure of the class.

Teachers can assess their students and get feedback for themselves and their students so that

changes to lessons can be made instantly instead of for the following day, which wastes a lot of

time. Middle schools in Canton, Ohio started using the interactive response system in

conjunction with graphing calculators, giving immediate feedback and changing lessons on the

go. According to Cavanagh (2006) this study showed that state math scores have increased in all

schools, with some even doubling. This study also explained the importance of formative

assessment, or assessing students more often at smaller intervals. This technology combination

lends itself towards this type of assessment, making it more feasible.

Promote Innovative Classroom Experiences

For teachers. Teachers play a key role in providing the technology rich learning

experience as a means of increasing engagement for their students. Several studies have been

done that show how important a teacher‟s knowledge of the technology they are using actually

is. According to Hew and Brush (2007), “a teacher‟s knowledge of technology appeared to play

a more significant role in contributing to classroom technology integration efforts than other

factors…” (p. 242). Some of the other factors include a teacher‟s beliefs on technology and how

it is used to benefit/harm students. Similarly, a study based on teachers who were knowledgeable

in the area of learning theories and had a high skill level regarding educational technologies were

able to create appropriate innovative classroom experiences for their students (Semple, 2000).

Throughout this process it was also found that classroom assessment methods do not always

match those of the innovative practices used to get students to learn in the first place (Girgin &

Stevens, 2005). A study conducted on this account shows that teachers must also assess students

on their proficiency using innovative methods and participation. Teachers must be proficient

themselves, in subject matter and technologically sound presentation methods, to help students

17

achieve. Based on these and other studies, we can conclude that teachers who are

knowledgeable in the areas of technology they are using with their students can provide optimal

learning experiences for their students.

For learners. In order to provide students with innovative classroom experiences while

integrating technology we must understand their attitudes toward learning using technology

itself, for this can have a great impact on the classroom experience that they have (Liu&

Johnson, 2001). Teachers can do many things to provide an innovative classroom experience,

but in order for it to be successful for a majority of students, they must consider the students

position in these areas. A study done on student‟s views of information technology, by Levin

and Wadmany, showed that students view the technology used by their teachers as a help, a sort

of authoritative informational platform, which they must interpret, to gain the meaning they are

looking for (2006). When students have positive attitudes regarding the physical tools through

which educators are using to promote learning and provide an innovative classroom experience

for their students, they will encounter increased results.

It is also important to look at participation as a form of being held accountable for

learning. Students can be provided with an innovative classroom experience by adding

technology to the mix, but they must show its importance by making their learning known to

their peers and those assessing them. Gresalfi, Martin, Hand & Greeno (2009) explained that it

requires much more effort to explain solutions/strategies to one‟s peers and that in doing to , an

innovative classroom experience is created.

Summary

As discussed, appropriate use of technology has many benefits to students and teachers.

By increasing interest in a particular topic, using enriched data sources/engaging scenarios, and

providing multisensory learning opportunities, students will be more motivated to participate and

18

become actively engaged in class. This in turn will help provide teachers and students with more

rich learning experiences from which all can benefit.

19

Chapter 3: Methodology

How technology affects the classroom participation of students has become a topic of

concern for teachers as they strive to make their classrooms equipped to handle a twenty-first

century student. This chapter will examine the participants of the study, how information will be

collected and used, and how the information will be analyzed.

Selection and Description of the Sample

The participants of this study were students in four eighth grade math classes. Two math

classes were randomly selected and all students in those classes will be a part of the sample

group. The two classes not selected were a part of the control group. The control groups were

used to help analyze the results of the sample groups, as similar data was collected based on

participation in all four classes.

Students in the two sample classes were not aware of their participation in the study, as

that might affect the rate of participation, which is what was being tested. No student names will

be used, and an alternate identifier will be given to each class period as to keep participants

anonymous.

Instrumentation

In order to test the participation rates of students in math class, based on the technology

used in a particular activity, two of the classes were used as control groups and two classes were

used as sample groups. The control groups received the same math instruction without

technology, but were asked the same key questions as the students in the sample classes. The

sample groups performed the activities with technology. The comparison was to determine if the

technology had an impact on student participation.

The data collection form that was used contained a list of the 10 key questions for the

lesson being taught as well as space to record how many student participants volunteered to

20

answer that particular question. The students themselves are not identified, only the occurrence

of participation for each question.

Data Collection Procedures

The participation form was used to record participation on 10 key questions throughout

each class. The same questions were asked in the sample groups and the control groups. The

number of students volunteering answers was recorded for each of the 10 key questions. The

participation form contains the 10 key questions and a place to mark how many students

participated on that particular question. Another teacher volunteer observed several lessons in

each of the four math classes. Each lesson contained 10 key questions that were identified to the

observer. He/she marked the participation for both the sample and control classes.

Data Analysis

Data from this study was based on the number of times students participated for each of

the 10 questions asked within the course of a class period in relation to the total number of

students in each class. The number of students alone was not used, as there were different class

sizes for each group in the study. In order to analyze the data, participation occurrences were

converted to percentages for comparison from class to class.

Limitations

There are several limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the

results of this study. Each class had a unique dynamic from student academic levels to comfort

levels among peers. Students may have reacted to questions, and whether they chose to

participate or not participate based on these dynamics. Although the classes are mixed based on

ability, there are still different levels of ability in each class and this may directly impact the

level of participation that is seen from each group. Another limitation is based on the

randomness of the sample. Classes were chosen based on the time of day that the class was

21

offered because of necessary set-up and take-down of the technology used within the lesson.

The students in each class are still random, but technology was either offered in the first two

classes of the day or the last two classes of the day.

22

Chapter 4: Results

This chapter includes the results of the observation on participation with and without

technology and a summary of the findings. The purpose of this study, again, was to determine

what affect technology use in the classroom has on participation. Two math classes were used as

control groups, where no additional technology was used, and the other two math classes were

used as sample groups which contained additional technology to support the same lesson. In this

study the additional technology included the use of a Smart Board, or interactive white board,

and the use of Senteos, or remote control answering devices. Each of the classes was asked the

same 10 target questions and participation was monitored. For classes with the use of

technology, five of the questions monitored were those that used the Smart Board and five of

those questions were those that used the Senteos.

Classes consisted of 25 to 30 students each, as noted below, in each of the four eighth

grade math classes. All classes are of mixed gender and mixed ability. Classes A and B did not

use any additional technology to support the lesson observed. Classes C and D were provided

with a Smart Board and class set of Senteos.

Total Number of Students per Class

Class Number of Students

Class A 29

Class B 25

Class C 27

Class D 26

The number of student participants in each class ranges from two students to 27 students.

In class A, student participation on the 10 monitored questions ranged from two students to 11

students, while in class B, the range was from two students to 12 students. Higher levels of

23

participation are seen in the classes using technology with a student participation range of six to

27 students in class C and nine to 26 students in class D.

The classes containing no additional technology used to support the lesson had levels of

participation ranging from seven percent to 40% on the 10 target questions, with the highest

average per question being 32 % of students participating on one of the target questions. The

classes containing student use of technology showed participation levels ranging from 22% to

100%, with several questions (Senteo provided) yielding 100% participation by students in the

class.

Overall, class A had a total class participation average of 22.1%, while class B had an

average of 22%. Class C had an average of 45% participation on questions where the use of a

Smart Board was available to for students to use and 97.8% participation where Senteos were

used to answer the questions. An overall class participation average of 71.4% was attained by

class C. Class D had an overall average of 53.2% participation on questions where the use of a

Smart Board was available to use and 100% participation where Senteos were used to answer the

questions. An overall class participation average of 76.6% was attained by class D.

24

Chapter 5: Discussion

There are many factors that contribute to a student‟s willingness to participate in a

classroom. Some students enjoy sharing answers or work with others and some do not. Many

are afraid of making mistakes or speaking their mind in front of peers because they fear being

wrong or being ridiculed. All students have different comfort levels when it comes to classroom

participation.

Past research suggests that active classroom participation increases how much is learned

in a class (Nelson, 2010). Educators are constantly looking for ways to engage students in

classes. Increasing participation is one way to engage students and increase learning. This study

examines the effects of adding technology to a math classroom and how it affects student

participation.

The results show that classes where students were able to use technology to explain or

show their answers had increased participation from those that did not use technology. These

findings were consistent across the board. The two classes that did not use technology both had

participation averages of around 22% (average on all 10 questions). The classes that used

technology had much higher averages. When using a Smart Board to answer questions, high

participation averages of around 50% were found. Students who were able to use the Senteo to

answer questions chose to participate at even higher levels. With a total average of about 99%

participation on those questions, class D had complete (100%) participation on all Senteo

questions.

While participating drastically increased with technology use, an even greater increase

was seen with the use of Senteos. This interactive response system allows students to participate

anonymously, which takes away the risk of participating and also the fear of making mistakes in

front of peers.

25

The rates of participation with technology in this study clearly exceed those without

technology. In addition, the participation results for questions with a Senteo far outweigh the

participation rates for questions where a Smart Board was used. This suggests that for middle

school students, presenting work or answers in front of peers does play a role when deciding to

participate or not. Technology seems to be a key factor in bridging that gap. Finding the right

technology to use in a particular classroom will be an important part of helping increase student

participation rates.

26

References

Active Learning (2010). Retrieved October 5, 2010, from Illinois State Education Center for

Teaching, Learning & Technology website,

http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/additional/tips/newActive.php.

Cavanagh, S. (2006). Technology helps teachers home in on student needs. Education Week,

26(12), 10-11. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete Database.

http://ezproxy.lib.uwstout.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir

ect=true&db=a9h&AN=23319975&site=ehost-live

Connected Math Project (2009). Retrieved October 5, 2010, from Michigan State University‟s

Connected Math Project website, http://connectedmath.msu.edu/.

Drier, H., Dawson, K., & Garofalo, J. (1999). Not your typical math class. Educational

Leadership, 56(5), 21. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete Database.

Elliott, L., Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Madson, L., & Hipshur, M. F. (2010). Research participation

versus classroom lecture: A comparison of student learning. Teaching of Psychology,

37(2), 129-131. doi:10.1080/00986281003626862.

Emanuelsson, J. & Sahlstrom, F. (2008). The price of participation: Teacher control versus

student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 52(2), 205-223. doi:10.1080/00313830801915853.

Girgin, K., & Stevens, D. D. (2005). Bridging in-class participation with innovative instruction:

Use and implications in a Turkish university classroom. Innovations in Education &

Teaching International, 42(1), 93-106. doi:10.1080/14703290500049059.

Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J., (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis

of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70. doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5.

27

Harmer, A. & Crates, W. (2007). Designing for learner engagement in middle school science:

Technology, inquiry, and the hierarchies of engagement. Computers in the Schools,

24(1/2), 105-124. doi: 10.1300/Jo25v24n01_08.

Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology

Research & Development, 55(3), 223-252.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). Three K-12 leadership groups urge

broad and intensive use of technology to improve education. Retrieved November 11,

2009 from

http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDispl

ay.cfm&CONTENTID=18797

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Listening to student‟s voices on learning with information

technologies in a rich technology based classroom. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 34(3), 281-317.

Liu, L., & Johnson, D. (2001). Assessing student learning in instructional technology:

dimensions of a learning model. Computers in the Schools, 18(2/3), 79.

The Metiri Group. (n.d.). Twenty-first century skills. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from

http://www.metiri.com/21stCenturySkills/PDFtwentyfirstcenturyskills.pdf

Nagy-Shadman, E., & Desrochers, C. (2008). Student response technology: Empirically

grounded or just a gimmick?. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2023-

2066. doi:10.1080/09500690701627253.

Nelson, K.G. (2010). Exploration of classroom participation in the presence of a token economy.

Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 49-56. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

28

Prentice, K. (2009). Intelligent technology engages students, helps them achieve academic goals.

Community College Week, 10. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection

database.

Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of

educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(3), 21.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of

teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

Slain, D., Abate, M., Hodges, B., Stamatakis, M., &Wolak, S. (2004). An interactive response

system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American

Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(5), 117. Retrieved from

http://www.ajpe.org/aj6805/aj6805117/aj6805117.pdf.

Taylor, L., Castro, D., & Walls, R. (2004). Tools, time and strategies for integrating technology

across the curriculum. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17(2), 121-136.

doi:10.1080/10720530490273908.

Tardi, S., Catarina, M., & Goldstein, M. (2006). Maximizing teaching and learning effectiveness.

International Journal of Learning, 12(11), 79-83.

Weaver, R. R., & Jiang, Q., (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students‟

perceptions. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

What Motivates Students? (2004). Teaching Professor, 18(3), 3-7. Retrieved from Academic

Search Complete Database.

http://ezproxy.lib.uwstout.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir

ect=true&db=a9h&AN=12271694&site=ehost-live.