Technology and Test Scores

Technology and Test Scores
Technology and Test Scores: Is Our Investment in Technology Improving Measurable Student
Learning?
Jennifer Black
Southern Utah University
Author Note
Jennifer Black is a student in the Southern Utah University LEAD program. She is a
kindergarten teacher in Jordan School District, West Jordan, Utah.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer Black, Butterfield
Canyon Elementary, 6860 W. Mary Leizan Lane, Herriman, UT 84096. Contact:
jennifer.black@jordandistrict.org
Abstract
United States schools invest heavily in technology. Standardized test scores are an important
measurement of student growth. The relationship between technology and performance on
standardized tests is discussed. Studies have had mixed results. Early studies showed little to know
improvement on test scores after implementation of technology plans, with some results showing a
negative impact. More recent studies have shown improvement. Utah schools are increasing
technology, but teachers are not utilizing it to its full potential. The key to implementing technology
effectively is professional development and teacher support.
Keywords: technology in schools, one-to-one computers, standardized testing, professional
development
Technology and Test Scores: Is Our Investment in Technology Improving Measurable Student
Learning?
In a Utah elementary school recently, the school technology committee was meeting with a
district technology specialist to discuss how they would spend their lands trust money. The school had
recently acquired iPads for all of its teachers. In addition to the teacher iPads, the school had a
portable iPad cart with thirty iPads. Teachers could check out the iPads for students to use in their
class. The school had just finished providing professional development for the teachers on the
mechanics of using the iPad and ideas for using them in the classroom. The committee was excited
about this new technology, and had decided to spend their lands trust money on purchasing another
mobile iPad lab. There was plenty of money in their budget to do this. As they began looking at each
item in the budget, however, the district specialist pointed out some school needs that the committee
hadnt thought of before. They would need to allocate some money to purchasing apps for the iPads.
The committee thought that could be kept at a minimum, since few teachers had submitted requests for
apps. The specialist then pointed out that many of the teachers would need new personal laptop
computers within the next year to replace outdated ones. That would require more money than was left
after the iPads. The committee was determined to have the iPad lab, and explained that most teachers
really did have updated computers, so they wouldnt be needing new ones. In the end, the school
ordered their iPad lab.
Bringing new technologies to schools is one of the responsibilities of an educational leader. An
educational leader should also keep in mind that the purpose of schools is to educate children. Is
bringing new technology into schools helping students to learn?
How do we know that technology is helping students to learn? The current method of showing
student learning is to look at their growth through improved standardized test scores. Does the use of
technology in classes improve those scores?
Unfortunately, most schools could not answer yes to the above questions. When looking at the
example of the school purchasing another iPad lab, they couldnt say that the new technology was
helping students learn. They didnt even know if the technology they had was being used effectively.
Teachers had some training, but werent using the iPads they had, as witnessed through their lack of
requested apps. Further investigation found that only two teachers were regularly utilizing the lab they
already had. There was no evaluation to see whether there was increase in student learning since the
first iPads were introduced. This school would probably have been better off waiting to purchase the
additional machines.
In the United States, trillions of dollars are spent on STEM investments for schools, whether
through government or private programs (Boser, 2013, p. 3). At the same time, there is a lot of
government and public outrage over our students poor test performance compared to students from
other countries. Does this mean that our technology dollars are wasted?
The answer is no. Technology is important to our schools for a variety of reasons. Use of
technology in the classroom can also contribute to higher test scores, although that has not always been
the case. The most important thing is not just to provide the technology, but use it in a manner that will
fuel student learning. This requires a greater investment in teacher training, and a greater commitment
from teachers to use the technology in the most effective way possible.
Research and Literature Foundation

In Amanda Ripleys book, The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way,
educational systems from around the world which have produced the highest test scores are discussed.
One of Ripleys observations is that technology is found in much lower amounts in these international
classrooms (2013). This may suggest that technology wont produce the test scores that Americans
want. However, technology is important in many ways that may not translate to higher test scores.
The research on the link between technology and test scores is mixed, but is trending toward the
positive.
Why Technology is Important
Before centering on technologies affects on test scores, its important to look at the other ways
that technology is beneficial. Test scores are important, but they should not be the only consideration
when adding technology. Students love using technology, and are more likely to be involved and stay
engaged in their lessons. Teachers believe there are benefits in using technology. It also helps level
the field between socio-economic classes. Most importantly, in order to prepare students for a global
workforce, knowledge of different technologies is vital.
Students love using technology. It provides something different, so it is more engaging than
traditional activities. Students believe that computers provide interactive and collaborative learning
opportunities. They report that computers make learning easier and more fun (Wu & Zhang, 2010, p.
65). These attitudes can contribute more than just increased participation. In Michigans Freedom to
Learn Program, educators found that students were more engaged in their learning, which resulted in
less discipline problems (McLester, 2011, p. 35). By using technology that students love, educators
may increase participation in lessons, which will increase student learning.
A majority of teachers believe that technology is important in classrooms. An SRI International

Center for Technology in Learnings study found that 93% of the teachers believed that handhelds had
a positive impact on students learning (as cited in Wu & Zhang, 2010, p. 59). Teachers in one-to-one
computer program classrooms report a high level of student engagement and enthusiasm in their
students. Students wrote longer papers and revised papers more easily than in non-computer
classrooms (Suhr, Hernandez, Grimes, & Warschauer, 2010, p. 25). If teachers believe that instruction
and learning is enhanced by technology, it should be a part of classrooms.
Technology can be an equalizer between those students for high-income families and those with
low-income. Increasing technology in schools gives low-income students access to technology they
wouldnt otherwise experience (Kposowa & Valdez, 2013, p. 347). Socio-economic status is one of
the largest predictors of student outcome on standardized tests, so providing some of the resources that
they might not have may help produce higher test scores (Zheng, Warschauer, & Farkas, 2013, p. 272).
One of the reasons the public is concerned about low test scores, is that schools may not be
preparing students for the workplace. Students arent learning the skills they need to be competitive in
the work force. Effective use of technology in the schools may help prepare students for jobs.
Educational researchers Kposowa and Valdez (2013, p. 346) believe, for a modern state to survive and
advance economically, it needs a highly educated workforce that is capable of adapting to advances in
technology to meet job demands of the 21st century and beyond.
These reasons for including technology in our schools are compelling, but hardly justify the
amount of money being spent if measurable growth is not produced. That leads to the question of
whether or not technology can help produce higher test scores. Unfortunately, the studies show mixed
results.
Early Studies
There were very few studies on the effectiveness of technology use in the early stages of
technology use in school. A lot of money was being spent before anyone looked to see whether the
investment provided any results. Studies often looked at the effects of educational technology on
teaching and learning, but didnt look at whether or not it improved standardized test scores. The
reason behind this may be that standardized tests are very general and are meant to measure content
area knowledge instead of the types of learning that is affected by technology use (ODwyer, Russell,
Bebell, & Seeley, 2008, p. 5). The studies often left many variables unconsidered, and were quasiscientific at best.
Once studies began to be conducted, the results were quite negative. A 1996 study of Israeli
students looked at student access to technology rather than actual technology use. It showed weak and
sometimes negative impact on student test scores. In a 1998 study, Wenglinsky found that general
student computer use was negatively related to math performance in fourth and eighth grade students.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Education studied the impact of sixteen different educational software
products. They found that test scores did not differ significantly between those who used the software
and those who did not (as cited in ODwyer, Russell, Bebell, & Seeley, 2008, p. 6-7).
ODwyer, Russell, Bebell, and Seeley (2008, p. 21-38) studied the effects of technology use on
math test scores. They found that student work with spreadsheets and teacher use of computers in
math instruction did not affect overall math test scores. They also broke down the math tests into
different math skills to look at the effects on different components. When looking at number sense,
work with spreadsheets and teacher use of computers did not affect test scores and use of technology at
home for recreation negatively affected scores. In geometry, using computers in school for math
negatively affected scores. For measurement, teachers who used technology to prepare lessons saw
higher test scores, but when students created products with technology, their scores were negatively
impacted. In data analysis, statistics and probability, students who used computers for recreation were
negatively affected, and teacher use of computers had no affect on scores. This biggest factors that
positively affected math test scores were students prior achievement and high socio-economic status.
Some studies found small increases in test scores depending on how the computers were used.
In 2005, ODwyer, Russell, Bebell, and Tucker-Seeley found that students who used technology to edit
writing had higher test scores, but those who used computers to create presentations or for recreational
purposes at home had lower scores (as cited in ODwyer, Russell, Bebell, & Seeley, 2008, p.8). Chen
looked at engineering mechanics students using handheld computers for instant feedback in quizzes.
There was no statistically significant difference between those who used the computers and those who
did not, although those that used the computers had good retention of concepts (as cited in Wu &
Zhang, 2010, p. 61). Michigans Freedom to Learn Program found that in some places there were
increases in math and science scores as a result of this one-to-one computer program, but generally,
test scores remained steady (McLester, 2011, p. 35).
If only these studies are considered, it appears that technology doesnt make a difference in
student test performance. Technology may have been a nice addition to classrooms, but it was
unimportant. More recent studies of technology programs in schools have been more positive,
however.
Recent Studies
Studies of technology and test scores have shown better results in more recent years. These
studies have also been done in a manner that addresses many variables, such as socio-economic status,
teacher training, and the uses of the technology in the classroom and at home.
Students in Mooresville, North Carolinas Graded School District have participated in one-toone computer programs since 2007. Students proficiency rates on their standardized tests increased
from 73% to 86% in the first four years of the program. Test scores werent greatly impacted
immediately, but had great results over time (Mellon, 2011).
In a 2010 study, Wu and Zhang (2010, p. 62-63) looked at the use of handheld computers and
their affect on spelling and math skills. They found that students who used handheld computers while
learning spelling had significantly higher test scores than those that did not. After the test, the mean
score for those who studied with the computer was 100.00. Those who used drill and practice had a
mean score of 90.60. In a test on dividing fractions, the scores of the students who used handheld
computers were significantly higher than those who did not. The mean score of the computer users
was 87.03 whereas the mean score of those who used pencil and paper was 60.98.
Suhr, Hernandez, Grimes, and Warschauer (2010) studied the effects one-to-one computer
programs had on the fourth-grade slump. There is a dramatic decrease in reading and writing
progress in kids in the fourth grade. There may still be progress, but it is much slower than in the
10
earlier grades. The study was an effort to see in the use of computers in fourth and fifth grade
classrooms could deter this phenomenon. The research found that after the second year of the
program, computer students outperformed non-computer students in reading response and analysis,
and writing. Both groups scores declined in reading comprehension, but the loss was less in those
who used computers.
Schools in Saugus, California, and Denver, Colorado implemented computer-based writing
programs. While writing is not a skill that is easily measured by standardized testing, the method was
adopted with the idea that writing is a higher-order thinking activity that should help the students
develop thinking skills that would help them in every subject. Indeed, these schools noted that after
the first year, test scores improved 20 to 25 percent (Demski, 2012, p.28). In addition, when one-toone computer programs are used for writing, students experienced gains in English language arts
scores. Hispanics and free-lunch students made the largest gains (Zheng, Warschauer, & Farkas, 2013,
p. 282).
These results suggest that test scores may be improved by including technology in education.
An administrator may continue to invest in technology and expect that it could improve test scores.
Field Activity
Administrators in Utah are adding technology to their schools. In the introductory example, the
school had a stationery computer lab, as well as a mobile laptop lab. Each teacher had an iPad, there
was a mobile iPad lab, and another mobile lab was ordered. This school is not alone in having prolific
technology in their school. All schools in Jordan School District where it is located have an iPad and
11
laptop for each teacher, as well as a school computer lab. Most have mobile laptop labs and additional
iPads for student use. Many classrooms have multiple computers available for student use.
It would be expected then, for test scores to be increasing in these schools. However, test
scores are remaining relatively steady. A closer look at the use of technology in the schools may
provide some answers.
One of the biggest differences between these local schools and the schools in the studies where
technology improved test scores is that the local schools are not using one-to-one computer programs.
One-to-one programs offer each student a laptop that they use at school and at home. They have
constant access to the technology. This is not available in Utah, and for financial reasons, probably
wont be available in the foreseeable future. Because the computers are not available in the same way
as the schools in the various studies, it would be unfair to expect the same results. However, because
there is a greater access to technology at Utah schools, some progress in test scores should be expected.
Teacher training could be the difference. Jordan School District provided every teacher with
thirty-two hours of professional development when they received their iPads. The teachers were taught
how to use the machines. They learned about different apps and the activities that could be done with
them. They were encouraged to use the iPads for personal applications so they could become familiar
and comfortable with them. This is a great example of quality professional development, however, it is
not ongoing. Teachers received the training over the course of a few months, and then were left to
continue to implement the technology on their own. Continued professional development on
technology issues is available, but limited, and it is not required. Teachers are busy and have little time
for things that they view as extra, and often technology is viewed as extra.
12
Looking at elementary, middle and high schools across the district, teachers usage of
technology in their classrooms vary. Regardless of the professional development teachers in the
district have had, most are not using the available technology to its fullest potential. However, they are
using it.
All teachers from the district that were interviewed use computers and iPads in their classroom.
They are mostly for lesson planning and delivery. Most use their technology to find and share lesson
ideas. That type of collaboration can be very helpful in improving instruction. Many use their
technology to show videos and other presentations. The teachers who were interviewed were aware of
mobile computer and iPad labs. Upper grades were much more likely to have their students use them.
Teachers cited lack of planning time and difficulty in managing students as reasons that they werent
letting students use the technology more in their classrooms.
There are few higher-order thinking activities happening on the available technology. In all
schools, students used computers for writing the most. In all grades from second up, students at least
occasionally used computers for writing activities, usually the creation of final drafts. Students
infrequently used computers for playing math games. Technology in the science classroom was mostly
used for showing video.
Even though technology usage was limited, teachers consistently expressed the belief that use
of technology was important for student learning. About half felt knowledgeable enough to use
technology with no problems. Younger teachers and male teachers seemed to be more confident in
their ability to use technology in the classroom. Most were unsure of whether or not more use of
technology by students would lead to higher test scores.
13
Theory to Practice
Technology usage in Utah schools is not unusual. Research shows that teachers
everywhere are struggling to use technology effectively. Results of a student and teacher survey in a
study by ODwyer, Russell, Bebell, and Seeley (2008, p. 18) showed that students use technology less
at school than at home, and they play games on their technology at home more than any other use.
Teachers reported that they used technology most frequently for lesson preparation instead of the
actual lessons. Will Richardson, columnist and co-owner of a technology professional development
company, is concerned about the way technology is being used in schools. He reports that, aside from
islands of innovation in Maine, Texas, and a few other areas, schools are using one-to-one devices as
nothing more than glorified pencils. Theyre basically using technology as a word processing tool
(McLester, 2011, p. 36). Boser (2013, p. 2-4) reports that most students are using technology for
basic skill instead of for higher-order learning activities. Only 24% of middle school students used
spreadsheets and 17% used statistical programs in math. 73% of high school students admitted to
watching videos during science, but on 66% reported using computers during science. Schools and
districts often see technology as something to add to their current approach rather than something that
might change their current approach. In other words, schools are not using technology to do things
differently.
How can an administrator bring the theory that technology will help increase test scores into
practice by teachers? The key seems to be consistent support and continuous professional
development.
An administrator needs to give support to his or her teachers. LaFee (2010, p. 47) remarks that,
A classroom today looks a lot like a classroom did 20, 50, even 100 years ago. And todays students
14
still generally learn the same way their parents and grandparents did: one teacher discoursing before
rows of desk-bound students. Teachers often teach the way that they learn and have been taught.
That was most often without the benefit of current technology. Teachers arent using technology in
classrooms because they didnt grow up with it and they werent trained how to use it. They may be
hesitant to use something they arent completely comfortable with. With time, this reluctance can
change. In order for that to happen, the administrator needs to consistently remind teachers of the
expectation to use the technology that is available to them.
As evidenced in the research studies, technology professional development is essential.
Administrators cant just provide technology and expect it to be used. Teachers cannot teach what they
do not know. In San Diego Unified School Districts i21 initiative, providing the technology was only
one part of the program. Teachers were also given ongoing professional development on using
technology in their lessons, and how to adapt their lessons and technology use for diverse learners.
After implementation, test scores improved dramatically (LaFee, 2010, p. 49). Ray Grogan, a principal
of a school in Maine, which is using a one-to-one computer program, stresses the need for professional
development for teachers. Dropping a laptop into a classroom doesnt change learning for students,
he said. It takes a lot of professional development to change how technology is being used
(McLester, 2011, p. 36).
Professional development should not be a one-time occurrence, either. JoAnn Yee, assistant
executive director for organizational development and urban affairs for the California School Boards
Association, made an excellent point concerning ongoing technology professional development. She
said,
15
Often in new programs, theres plenty of training in the beginning, but then people are just cut
loose to do their own thing. If somethings going to work in the long term, there needs to be
continued training and regular modifications to reinforce best practices (LaFee, 2010, p. 50).
Change is hard and takes a long time to become permanent. The only way to increase effective use of
technology in the classroom is to continually educate teachers and collaborate on effective practices.
Coleman Junior High in Texas has seen seventh-grade proficiency in reading go from 63% to
83%. Math proficiency moved from 38% to 77%. Eighth-grade social studies proficiency increased to
100% and science proficiency went from 53% to 83%. They credit this success to a large amount of
professional development, supportive administration, and teachers who are willing to learn (McAlester,
2011, p. 36). If professional development and support are given, teachers will begin to see success
with technology, and will become more willing to learn.
Relevance to Professional Goals

An administrator will need to make decisions for his or her school. ISLLC standards and
Praxis topics list characteristics of educational leaders. Decisions about educational technology and
measures to improve student performance are included in these standards.
Standard 2, Function H, of the ISLLC standards states that educational leaders should,
promote the use of the most effective and appropriate technologies to support teaching and learning
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008, p. 14). An administrator is responsible for bringing
technology to the school, but it needs to be effective and appropriate. Purchasing new technologies
just for the sake of having technology is not effective. A purpose for the technology needs to be
16
established and teachers need to have a solid foundation in the technology before it can be considered
appropriate.
This standard also corresponds to Praxis topic I C. Continuous improvement toward the vision
and goals. An education leader aligns all resources, including technology, to achieve the vision and
goals (Educational Testing Service, 2012, p. 13). Everything a principal does for the school should be
based on the vision and goals that the school has established. If acquiring new technology does not
meet with the vision of the school, it should be discontinued.
An educational leader should, promote continuous and sustainable improvement, and
monitor and evaluate progress and revise plans, according to ISLLC standards (Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2008, p. 14). Technology is often seen as improvement, but does it help our
students make progress? Without extensive training for teachers, adding extensive technology to our
schools will not bring about the progress we would hope for. A principal needs to evaluate the
effectiveness of the technology in their school and be prepared to revise things if need be. This may
include additional professional development for staff.
Indeed, Praxis topic 2A. states that, an education leader guides and supports job-embedded,
standards-based professional development that meets the learning needs of all students and staff
(Educational Testing Service, 2012, p. 13). It is the duty of an administrator to provide training for
teachers that will increase student learning. Technology can increase student learning, but only if
teachers know how to use it effectively.
17
Why This is Important for K-12 Students
The business of education is helping students learn. If technology can help students learn, it is
imperative for it to be provided. Research has shown that technology can improve test scores, but the
teachers role is vitally important. Because of this, the administrators job is vitally important. If an
administrator chooses to provide technology, but also provides continuous professional development
and support for teachers, students will be more engaged in their learning, develop important thinking
skills, and therefore, raise their standardized test scores.
Conclusion
Technology is ubiquitous in United States schools. Administrators are happy to provide more
and more, but often, technology is added without a clear purpose.
There is a strong emphasis on improving students test scores. Because of this, it makes sense
to add elements to schools that will help facilitate this improvement. There is already a heavy
investment in technology, so it provident that technology can help improve scores. Research has
proven that technology can make a difference to test scores.
If an administrator adds technology to a school with the purpose of improving test scores, there
are certain measures he or she must take. First, teachers need to be supported in their efforts to make a
change in their usage of technology. Second, professional development must be provided to instruct
teachers on how to use new technology, and how to use it effectively in their classrooms. Additionally,
professional development must be ongoing. Change cannot occur unless support and professional
development are consistently provided.
18
Technology is an important tool for American students. It will help them to enjoy learning.
They will be more engaged and involved in their learning. It will help prepare students to be ready for
a more technological work force. Technology can also help improve students test scores. Adding
technology to our schools and using it effectively is a benefit to students.
19
References
Boser, U. (2013). Are schools getting a big enough bang for their education technology buck?
Retrieved from Center for American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/UlrichEducationTech-brief-3.pdf
Camhi, S. L. (2010). Extreme makeover: School edition-- How the 2009 Sylvia Charp award winner
used technology to transform a once struggling school district. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 37(5), 12-15.
Center for American Progress, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, & Hess, F. M. (2009). Leaders and
laggards: A state-by-state report card on educational innovation. Retrieved from
http://www.american-progress.org/issues/2009/11/pdf/leaders_and_laggards.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008.
Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org
Demski, J. (2012). Building 21st century writers. T. H. E. Journal, 39(2), 23-26.
Educational Testing Service (2012). The Praxis study companion: Educational leadership:
Administration and supervision. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/praxis
Kposowa, A. J., & Valdez, A. D. (2013). Student laptop use and scores on standardized tests. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 48(3), 345-379. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.290/EC.48.3.d
LaFee, S. (2010). Taking the 'i21' initiative: San Diego USD looks to transform teaching and learning
through technology. The Education Digest, 76(3), 47-51.

Mclester, S. (2011). Lessons learned from one-to-one. District Administration, 47(6), 34-39.
Mellon, E. (2011). Laptops lead to love of learning. District Administration, 47(6), 24.
O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Seeley, K. (2008). Examining the relationship between
students' mathematics test scores and computer use at home and at school. Journal of
Technology, Learning and Assessment, 6(5). Retrieved from www.jtla.org
Ripley, A. (2013). The smartest kids in the world: And how they got that way. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and fourth-grade
literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning,
and Assessment, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org
Wu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Examining potentialities of handheld technology in students' academic
attainments. Educational Media International, 47(1), 57-67.
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., & Farkas, G. (2013). Digital writing and diversity: The effects of school
laptop programs on literacy processes and outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 48(3), 267-299.
20
21

Technology and Test Scores

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology and Test Scores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology and Test Scores