An Examination of the Correlation between Teacher Perception of Technology

Integration and Student Success on Standardized Achievement Tests

Vince Moore & Michael Serfin
University of North Texas
Distributed PhD Program in Learning Technologies

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to identify a relationship between teachers perceptions of technology use in the classroom and achievement levels on standardized testing in rural Texas. The
Texas Education Agency gathers and makes available test scores of its K-12 schools, as well as maintaining an online portal for the purpose of ascertaining educators observations of technology usage
within their educational space. It is important to not only study technology adoption in schools, but also the impact it has on the quality of education. To that end, the anticipated outcome is a positive
correlation between higher technology awareness and students test scores. However, no correlation was found. The findings of this study may be useful in determining how strong a bond there is
between these two variables, as well as a secondary purpose to discuss if there are better ways to collect, and more accurately show, individual teacher technology assessments.
Keywords: standardized test, assessment, teacher perception, rural, K-12

Introduction Texas STaR Chart Results

Teachers often wonder how utilizing technology in the learning What is it? School Technology and Readiness; part of the Long-
environment affects students learning. Some studies say it is Range Plan for Technology performed by the Texas Education Teacher Perceptions vs. Outcomes
beneficial while others show negative responses. Still others show Agency

Average Percent Score on STAAR Tests

80%
a neutral response (Ponzo, 2014; Vigdor, Ladd, & Martinez, 2014; What does it measure? Teacher perception of technology as it
Harter & Harter, 2004). relates to teaching methods, educator preparedness,
administration and support, and campus/district infrastructure 70%
This study asks the question: Is there a connection between How is it scored? Four categories, scored 1 (Early Tech) to 6
student achievement and technological integration in the (Target Tech); lowest possible score is 6 and highest is 24 60%
learning environment?

One important factor concerning how technology is implemented is STAAR Tests 50%
Each green dot
represents a
a teachers beliefs and practices. Technology impacts students in What is it? State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness; a single school
classrooms with ample access and teachers who are knowledgeable series of standardized tests prescribed by the Texas Education
40%
and given freedom to utilize technology (Becker, 2000.) Ertmer Agency
(2005) states that to understand how technology is being used, you What does it measure? Students performance in a variety of
must first look at the beliefs of the teacher. Cuban (1986) found subjects against a set of standards throughout their K-12 career 30%
that effective technology integration is on the shoulders of teachers. How is it scored? District-wide passing percentages on Math,
What the teacher does is more important than simply exposing Reading, and Writing sections; lowest possible score is 0% and 20%
students to technology (Cuban, 1986; Cuban, 1999; Ertmer, 2005; highest is 100% 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Keengwe, Schnellar, & Mills, 2011; Average Percent Score on Texas STaR Chart
Bowers & Berland, 2012; Vigdor, Ladd, & Martinez, 2014.) Methods
Data taken from 2012-2013 administrations of STAAR tests and
To measure the connection in this study, teacher perceptions were
gauged against students standardized testing results to see if a
Texas STaR Chart.
Data represents 69 schools from mostly rural area of northwest
Discussion
correlation between the two could be ascertained. To measure No correlation was found, which is not to say there is no connection between technology and student
central Texas
teacher perception, results from the Texas STaR Chart were used. achievementjust that no correlation was found in this particular study
Mostly middle (6-8) and high (9-12) schools, but some data
Student learning was measured by utilizing district-wide results of There are questions about the validity and reliability of the Texas STaR chart; tied to funding
comes from single campus (K-12) districts
the STAAR tests. It was hypothesized that a positive correlation incentives, teacher perception can be tricky, varied interpretations of test questions, etc. could lead to
would be found, indicating that a higher score on teacher perception a high error variance
of technology use predicts a higher level of student achievement. Standardized testing should not be considered the only measure of student achievement
Instead of focusing on general implementation of technology, study specific actions to find impacts

Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computer survey: Is Larry Cuban right? [PDF file]. Education Policy Analysis
Archives. Retrieved November 2, 2014 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/442/565
Bowers, A. J., & Berland, M. (2013). Does recreational computer use affect high school achievement?. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 61(1), 51-69.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1999). High-tech schools, low-tech teaching. Education Digest, 64(5), 53-54.
Davidson, L. Y. J., Richardson, M., & Jones, D. (2014). Teachers perspective on using technology as an instructional tool. Research in Higher
Education Journal, 24. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141892.pdf.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology, Research
and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Haladyna, T., Haas, N., and Allison, J. (1998). Continuing tension in standardized testing. Childhood Education, 74(5), 262-273.
References
Harter, C. L, & Harter, J. F. R. (2004). Teaching with technology: Does access to computer technology increase student achievement? Eastern Ponzo, M. (2011). Does the way in which students use computers affect their school performance? Journal of Economic and Social Research,
Economic Journal, 30(4), 507-514. 13(2), 1-27.
Hernandez-Julian, R., & Peters, C. (2012). Does the medium matter? Online versus paper coursework. Southern Economic Journal, 78(4), 1333- Stansfield, W. D. (2011). Educational curriculum standards & standardized educational tests: Comparing apples & oranges. The American
1345. Biology Teacher, 73(7), 389-393.
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Strawn, C. (2011). What does the research say? Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(2), 38-39.
Schools, 26, 130-146. Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020. Retrieved October 27, 2014 from
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional technology integration and student learning. Education http://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID= 2147494561&libID=2147494558.
and Information Technologies, 17, 137-146. Texas Education Agency. (2014). School technology and readiness chart. Retrieved October 27, 2014 from http://tea.texas.gov/starchart/.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teacher perception of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional Texas Education Agency. (2014). STAAR resources. Retrieved October 27, 2014 from http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/staar/.
development. Computers & Education, 59, 1109-1131. Vigdor, J. L., Ladd, H. F., & Martinez, E. (2014). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. Economic
Liu, L., Maddux, C., & Johnson, D. L. (2008). Assessment of integration of technology in education: Countering the no significant differences Inquiry, 52(3), 1103-1119.
argument. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 25(1-2), 1-9.

Vince Moore vincemoore@my.unt.edu Michael Serfin michaelserfin@my.unt.edu