The impact of classroom technology on student behavior
Angeline M. Lavin University of South Dakota Leon Korte University of South Dakota Thomas L. Davies University of South Dakota ABSTRACT The trend toward technology enhanced classrooms has escalated quickly during the past five years as students have become increasingly tech-savvy. Classrooms across the nation have become “wired” and textbook publishers now offer a wide variety of computerized teaching supplements. In fact, some may argue that technology is now expected in the college classroom. The objective of this research is to examine whether the use of technology in university classes impacts student behavior and student perceptions of instructional quality. This paper summarizes the results of a survey administered to students enrolled in business courses at a mid-sized Midwestern university. The results suggest that adding technology in courses where it is not currently used is likely to have a positive impact on student perceptions of the instructor and on student behavior. However, removing technology from courses that already use it would not appear to have a negative impact on all aspects of student behavior. Overall there are certain aspects of student behavior (the amount of time that students study, the quantity of notes they take, their attendance, and their interaction with the instructor) which appear to be technology neutral. In contrast, technology tends to have a meaningful impact on student preparation for class, attentiveness, quality of notes taken, student participation in class, student learning, desire to take additional classes from the instructor or in the subject matter, and the overall evaluation of the course and the instructor. Keywords: class technology, instructional quality, student behavior, student perceptions
The impact of classroom technology, Page 1
Journal of Technology Research INTRODUCTION Technology, it seems, is everywhere these
References: Apperson, J., Laws, E., and Scepansky, J. (2006). The Impact of Presentation Graphics on Students’ Experience in the Classroom. Computers and Education, 47(1), 116-126. Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., Mohundro, S. and Sayre, W. (1998). Rewards and Liabilities of Presentation Software as an Ancillary Tool: Prison or Paradise? Paper presented at the National Communication Association Eighty Fourth Annual Conference, New York, NY. Burbules, N. and Callister, T., Jr. (2000). Watch IT: The Promises and Risk of New Information Technologies for Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Christensen, K. (1999). A Comparison of Student Performance in Human Development Classes Using Three Different Modes of Delivery: Online, Face-to-Face, and Combined. Ed.D. Dissertation, Department of Education, Drake University. Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint as a First Step. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10, 42-56. Epper, R. and Bates, A. (2001). Teaching Faculty How to Use Technology. American Council on Education. Oryx Press. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R. F., and Abrami, P. C. (2006). Student Perceived Effectiveness of Computer Technology Use in Post-secondary Classrooms. Computer and Education, 47, 465-489. Mantei, E. (2000). Using Internet Class Notes and PowerPoint in the Physical Geology Lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 301-305. McCombs, B. (2000). Assessing the Role of Educational Technology in the Teaching and Learning Process: A Learner-Centered Perspective. The Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology 2000. www.ed.gov/Technology/techconf/2000/mccombs_paper.html. McFarlane, A. (1997). What Are We and How Did We Get Here? In A. McFarlane (ED.), Information Technology and Authentic Learning: Realizing the Potential of Computers in the Primary Classroom. London, England : Routledge. Roblyer, M. (2003). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Witcher, A., Onwuegbuzie, A., Collins, K., Filer, J., Wiedmaier, C., and Moore, C. Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service: ED 482517. The impact of classroom technology, Page 12 Journal of Technology Research APPENDIX Demographic Information for Undergraduate Students in the Sample Technology = Technology Used; Impact of the Absence of Technology No Technology = Technology Not Used; Impact of the Addition of Technology Major for Undergraduate Students in Sample Technology No Technology (N = 329) (N = 155) Accounting 19% 15% Economics Finance Health Service Administration Management Marketing Business Undeclared Other – Non-business 5% 8% 8% 26% 13% 14% 7% 5% 13% 8% 23% 8% 18% 10% Year for Undergraduate Students in Sample Technology No Technology (N = 329) (N = 155) Freshman 18% 3% Sophomore Junior Senior 22% 32% 28% 52% 23% 22% Χ2 tests for differences in the distribution of majors between the two groups and for differences in the distribution of undergraduate years did not reject the null hypothesis. It was assumed there were no significant differences in the distribution of undergraduate majors or in the distribution of students in terms of academic progress when comparing the two groups. Technology (N = 329) Female Male Student gender 40% 60% No Technology (N = 155) Female Male 49% 51% A test of proportions suggested no significant difference in the proportion of female to male students when comparing the two groups included in this study. The impact of classroom technology, Page 13