1

Instructional Technology Classroom Integration and Math Scores of

Fifth Grade Students in PARCC State Assessment in
School District Maryland, USA

CYNTHIA PAREJA

A dissertationproposal submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education,

Central Luzon State Universityin partial fulfillment for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Development Education
 2

July 2019

INTRODUCTION

Establishing relationship between technology integration in the classroom and student

achievement is a viable and potent research. While the investment in technology over the last

couple of years has been tremendous, there is little to nothing of research that directly states the

impact of technology use on student achievement. Wenglingsky (2006) echoes this status quo,

saying “ When push comes to shove, however, we must measure the success of instructional

technology against one bottom line: Does using technology in schools raise student

achievement? Until the late 1990s, comparatively little evidence was available to help us answer

this question. Although many studies of so-called ―computer-assisted instruction‖—self-

contained programs that drilled students in arithmetic, reading, and the like—had found positive

effects, these effects were rarely replicable on a large scale.”.

Former U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings delivered remarks at the annual

Celebration of Teaching and Learning conference in New York in 2007, where she discussed the

important role of teachers in fostering strong science and technology education and how No

Child Left Behind can help teachers customize instruction and raise student achievement.

All of us know that technology offers tremendous opportunities for education. A recent

study showed that it would take 12 stacks of books, each extending more than 93 million miles

from the Earth to the sun, to equal the amount of digital information created or copied last year

alone. Harnessing the power of innovation for the good of our schools is not just a novel

enterprise. Our country's health and prosperity depend on our education system's ability to adapt
 3

and grow with our knowledge economy. As technology transforms the way we live, work, and

play, schools and educators must become flexible and agile enough to meet students changing

needs. And that means tailoring instruction and using time in more innovative ways—so that

every child gets the extra help they need when they need it and the rigorous coursework they

need and deserve. (Spellings, 2007)

Educators in the United States are held accountable for student achievement as outlined

in the No Child Left Behind (NLCB) Act of 2001. Alongside NLCB was the simultaneous

proliferation of technology. Technology is ever present in our daily lives. In the study Managing

Teachers' Barriers to ICT Integration in Singapore Schools, authored by Lim and Khine (2006)

mentioned “over the past few decades rapid technological development and innovations have

created unprecedented impacts on our day-to-day activities.”. In a study conducted by Wozney,

Venkatesh, and Abrami (2006), they have stated that we are experiencing exponential growth in

the use of computer technology for learning in K-12 schools. Oyebolu and Olusiji (2013) said

that “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has become, within a very short time,

one of the basic building blocks of modern society. Many countries now regard understanding

ICT and mastering the basic skills and concepts of ICT as part of the core of education,

alongside reading, writing, and numeracy”.

The NCLB Act raised the standard for student achievement. Along with it came

increased mandated accountability in the form of state reporting mechanisms. In the state of

Maryland, student achievement is measured using the PARCC Assessment, or the Partnership

for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). It is a group of states working
 4

together to develop a set of assessments that measure whether students are on track to be

successful in college and careers (https://parcc.pearson.com).

Given the legislation and the abundance of technology, the researcher wonders whether

technology has an impact on student data. If technology is available and used in the classroom,

does it translate to results as measured by assessments, such as the PARCC state assessment?

While there is undoubtedly significant investment in technology in schools there is little research

that establishes a connection between the level of integration of technology available and the

performance of students on high-stakes achievement tests. This study seeks to determine if a

relationship exists in the use of technology and achievement scores of students in 5th grade in

the PARCC assessment.

Statement of the Problem

Using technology in the classroom has been one of the pillars of 21st century education.

Wenglinsky (2006) noted that “by the end of the 1990s, however, things had changed. Nearly

every U.S. school had faster and more powerful computers than those that large universities had

been able to afford only 10 years before, as well as CD-ROM drives and Internet connections.

The computer-to-student ratio was down to 1 to 5, and a greater proportion of computers were

actually located in classrooms. More teachers had received enough training in technology to feel

confident using computers in instruction”.

Students are exposed to a variety of technology during instruction that teachers and

administrator believe promote exponential growth in children. Growth, called student

 5

achievement, is measured by state assessments that become the basis of accountability

reportingsystem. Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that

technology affects student achievement in some surprising ways (Wenglinsky, 2006). But not

everybody agrees on this one. Wenglinsky wrote some researchers argued that computers had a

deleterious effect on young children's social, emotional, and physical development (Alliance for

Childhood, 2004; Healy, 1999). In addition to the critics of computers in the lower grades, some

criticized the use of computers in education in general. Most famously, Larry Cuban argued that

history was rife with examples of schools requiring teachers to use some new, unproven

technology in the classroom; computers were just the latest example (1986). In case studies at

various grade levels, Cuban found that advocates' claims about computers' benefits were

overstated (2001). Oppenheimer (2003) went further, presenting stories of simplistic, mindless

assignments that would never have passed muster had they not had the window dressing of using

a computer.

Given the polarizing views on instructional technology and its relationship with students

achievement, this study aims to look at whether there is a relationship between technology usage

and assessment scores in students in 5th grade in the PARCC assessment.

Objectives of the Study

The general aim of this study was to find out the relationship on the use of instructional

technology on students’ performance in state assessments in mathematics administered by

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). Specifically, the

researcher sought to:

 6

1. describe the socio-demographic profile of teacher respondents in terms of age, sex,

ethnicity, school district, current work responsibility, highest educational attainment,

years of teaching, area of specialization, andpersonal instructional technology equipment;

2. describe the socio-demographic profile of student respondents in terms of age, sex,

ethnicity, parents highest educational attainment, father occupation, mother occupation,

and inclination to technology;

3. describe the instructional technology integration utilized by teachers in terms of

instructional technology utilized (type of technology utilized, amount of time spent

preparing instructional technology, technology website/software used , amount of time

spent in using technology website/software, level of skills in using technology,related

instructional technology training attended),content delivery using instructional

technology(amount of time utilized for content delivery, amount of time utilized by

students for content mastery, and amount of time utilized for assessment of mastery), and

behavioral intensions (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and

facilitating conditions);

4. describe the instructional technology utilization of students in terms of

type of technology used for learning mathematics , amount of time spent in using

technology website/software for learning mathematics, technologywebsite/software used

for learning mathematics, level of skills in using technology, and amount of time utilized

by students for content mastery;

 7

5. describe the performance of student respondents thru PARCC Assessment in mathematics

in terms of level 1 (did not meetexpectations), level 2(partially met expectations), level 3

(approached expectations), level 4 (met expectations) and level 5 (exceeded expectations);

6. find out the relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics of student

respondents and their academic performance in mathematics;

7. find out the relationship of the socio-demographic profile of teacher respondents and their

students’ performance in mathematics during Spring 2018 thru PARCC Assessment;

8. find out the relationship of teacher respondents’ instructional technology integration,

content delivery using instructional technology, and behavioral intentions to students’

performance in mathematics in Spring 2018 thru PARCC Assessment;

9. find out which of the independent variables predict student’s score thru PARCC

Assessment in mathematics;

Hypothesis of the Study

The following null hypotheses will be tested:

1. There is no significant relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics of

student respondents and their academic performance in mathematics;

2. There is no significant relationship of the socio-demographic profile of teacher

respondents and their students’ performance in mathematics during Spring 2018 thru

PARCC Assessment;
 8

3. There is no significant relationship of teacher respondents’ instructional technology

integration, content delivery using instructional technology, and behavioral intentions to

students’ performance in mathematics in Spring 2018 thru PARCC Assessment;

4. The independent variables do not significantly predict student’s score thru PARCC

Assessment in mathematics;

Significance of the Study

This research study hoped at exploring the usefulness of instructional technology to the

scores of students. Particularly, this study focused on current 5th grade students and using

archival study by looking at Math PARCC scores from the previous year (Fall 2017- Spring

2018) and examined trends in technology usage and its relationship with scores in Math.The

results of this study offeredacademic benefits to different stakeholders.

State Schools in the United States. State schools in the United States would be the primary

beneficiaries of this study since it would provide new knowledge on how imperative

instructional technology in mathematical classroom setting. Results would offer fringe benefits

on what specific technology and software would be effective in enhancing student’s academic

performance in Mathematics in general and in PARCC Assessment in particular.

School Administrators.Administrators can focus their resources on staff training and

development on making sure that teachers are well-versed in integrating proven platforms of

technology in daily instruction that will deliver the most results.

 9

Policy Makers/Curriculum Planners. The results of this study would offer policy makers and

curriculum planners to highly consider the importance of instructional technology in the general

classroom setting. Findings would provide policy makers an avenue how to improve curricular

programs in both elementary and secondary levels when it comes to mathematical proficiency

among students in relation to instructional technology.

Teachers. Results of this study would define the usefulness of instructional technology to be

utilized and assist teachers what specific software would be more successful in student learning.

With this perspective, Teachers can screen and devote their time on more effective programs and

help all students across the board get to where they need to be.

Students. Findings of this study would provide substantial empirical evidences to students on

what specific software and amount of time being spent using technology would be most

beneficial in learning concepts of mathematics. Students and their families can make good

decisions as to what types of platform they should allot more time in to help improve skills and

impact scores. More so, the amount of time being spent for content mastery would be defined so

that students would be aware how and what specific time duration would be allotted for them to

perform such activities that are technology-based.

Parents. The results would provide parents substantial evidence to fully support their children in

all types of software used in mathematics classroom as these would assist their children to
 10

perform better in mathematics. Thus, providing students with learning facilities equipped with

these instructional technologies utilized for mathematics would give assurance that their children

perform above academic standard.

Technology Designers and Developers.This study will contribute to the literature and help

developers more sensitive to the needs of the learners and teachers and how technological

companies can program their products to become more responsive to the needs of consumers-

especially the younger generation who, under the guidance of trained professionals, will

continue to proliferate and improve the current state of affairs.

Future Researchers.Future researchers who would likewise be interested investigating the link

between instructional technology and academic performance of students in mathematics would

be an ample ground for further exploration through research.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study was only limited to assessing the usefulness of instructional technology to

general classroom mathematics and its relationship to PARCC Assessment scores of students.

Purposely, only teachers of mathematics and 5th grade students’ scores in mathematics

during academic year (Fall 2017-2018) were the scope of this inquiry. This study onlyfocused

on assessing the relationship between instructional technology integration by teachers in the

classroom and students’ Math scores and did not include the overall academic performance as a

whole. The study solely identified the approved and purchased instructional technology being
 11

used in the classroom for Math instruction, websites on the internet that teachers use to help

deliver content, use as a tool for practice and mastery, and as an evaluation tool. Other software

or websites not included in the approved list was not the scope of this study. Specifically, only

the results of the PARCC Assessment scores between academic year Fall 2017 and Spring 2018

were analyzed in gauging the relationship with technological instruction which were measured

thru teachers’ perspectives on its integration and students’ perspectives on its links to student

learning. PARCC Assessment cores for other academic years such as 2018-2019 were not

included in the analysis.