Running head: FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

Fumbling Toward Improving Student Desire to Attend Public School:

A Quantitative Study on the Impact of Technological Difficulties on Students Attitudes and
Performance in Two Ninth Grade English Classes

Shanna Irving
EDRS 8900: Applied Field Research
Kennesaw State University
April 27, 2014

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

Fumbling Toward Improving Student Desire to Attend Public School:

A Quantitative Study on the Impact of Technological Difficulties on Students Attitudes and
Performance in Two Ninth Grade English Classes
A mass of angst-ridden fourteen year-old students search the burgeoning alternative
education zones, searching for a means of learning that is not so boring, a term they use loosely
but certainly not without zeal. Their parents discuss new and intriguing concepts like charter
schools and online education, hoping their struggling learners will find an educational home
somewhere beyond the confines of the public education system that has done little to make them
feel successful. These hopeful students and parents soon find that charter school and online
schools have their problems, too. Where are they then to go? What exactly are they running from
to begin with? This research sought to determine whether utilizing collaborative technology in
the classroom has the potential to increase at-risk students enjoyment of and success in public
school, thereby decreasing the student exodus from public school. Whether collaborative
digitization has this power, however, remains to be determined empirically at this writing, as
unforeseen circumstances derailed the initial aim of this study but retrenched it into another
important revelation: that even fumbled attempts at technology integration do students no harm,
and the potential for successful attempts to do students some good remains a compelling
possibility.
This study was initially designed to address a gap in the research by examining
collaborative digitization as a means of increasing at-risk students enjoyment of public school
classes, thus decreasing their desire to seek alternative schooling options such as charter schools
and online schools. Because of difficulties with the technological infrastructure of the

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

participating school, however, the data were ultimately examined to determine whether
difficulties with technology implementation impacted at-risk students performance and desire to
attend public school and English class specifically.
The initial design and the literature review focused on the problems with ineffective
school choice options for parents and students and sought to ultimately suggest that
improvements in collaborative technology-based curricula would increase student performance
and desire to attend public school rather than seek educational experiences in charter schools or
online education. Conflicting research suggests that the educational excellence parents and
students hope to find in charter schools may not be evident in impartial charter school
performance data. For example, while some researchers promote charter schools as effective
means of improving the education of charter school students and public school students in
surrounding areas (Gray, 2012), other researchers renounce the available research on charter
school effectiveness as predominantly biased and unrepresentative of the actual impact of charter
schools on student learning (Knaak & Knaak, 2013). Some charter schools are populated via
lottery: students enter the lottery in hopes of attending a school of choice. Recent research has
demonstrated a positive correlation between lottery schools and educational attainment for
female students, but a negative correlation was found between lottery schools and educational
attainment for males (Deming, Hastings, Kane, & Staiger, 2014). Corroborating this research is
a study by Hallinan and Kubitschek (2012) on female and male educational outcomes in Catholic
schools: a significant increase in academic achievement was found for female students in
Catholic school as compared to female students in public school, while male students in both
school types demonstrated similar gains. These gains were slightly higher than the gains for
female students in public school and significantly lower than the gains for female students in

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

Catholic school.
Online schooling, too, has received its contradictory criticisms. It is argued that students who
struggle with motivation in the traditional public school classroom demonstrate difficulty maintaining
motivation in online schooling (Barbour & Skio, 2012). In contrast to this finding, research promoting
collaboration in online schooling has demonstrated increased engagement and motivation for students
(Gould, 2014).

Additional issues with the implementation of school choice programs include subterfuge
between competing traditional and charter public schools (Foster, 2014), an imbalance between
the supply and demand of school choice options (Hill, 2006), and over-cluttered (Pearcy,
2013, p.176) online course designs.
Despite conflicting evidence, the issues of charter schools selecting students in order to
appear more effective (Knaak & Knaak, 2013), lottery-based and Catholic schools inability to
engage boys in academically challenging curriculum (Deming, Hastings, Kane, & Staiger, 2014),
and online schools potential to disengage learners who are considered at-risk (Barbour & Siko,
2012), many parents and students remain dissatisfied with public school and seek out these
alternative options (Butler, Carr, Toma, & Zimmer, 2013; Loeb, Valant, & Kasman, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
This research initially hypothesized that a solution to the problems with charter, online
school, and other choice school implementation would be best answered by returning to the
discontent underlying the original development of these choice schools. Arguably, the
availability of alternative modes of education is not the answer; the answer may lie in
revitalizing public schools in ways that will better engage all students minds and assuage their

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

parents frustrations. The initial aim of this quantitative study was to determine whether
collaborative digitization, when implemented effectively as augmentation to traditional public
school classroom learning, has the potential to improve the traditional classroom education of all
learners and to thus increase at-risk students desire to be there. Because of problems with the
schools technology infrastructure and the participants resulting frustrations, however, the data
collected could not reflect the initial aim. Accordingly, a new problem was assessed in the data:
the influence of collaborative technology implementation difficulties on students performance
and attitudes.
Research Questions and Hypothesis
The overarching question for this research grew from the necessary change in
hypothetical focus and data mining: How likely is it for at-risk and not at-risk students to be
discouraged by technology failures? In answer to this overarching question, this research
answered the following subset questions: (1) Are at-risk students enrolled in a typical 9th grade
Literature & Composition inclusion course more likely than their not at-risk peers to dislike
public education?; (2) Do difficulties with digital augmentation of a unit plan decrease the
performance of students not considered at-risk?; (3) Do difficulties with digital augmentation of
a unit plan decrease at-risk students performance?; (4) Do difficulties with digital augmentation
of a unit plan decrease desire to attend the school among students not considered at-risk?; and (5)
Do difficulties with digital augmentation of a unit plan decrease at-risk students desire to attend
public school?
It was hypothesized that typically at-risk students in collaborative digitally-augmented
traditional public school 9th grade English would outperform typically at-risk students and boys

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

enrolled in the same course without digital augmentation, as measured by numerical rubric data
relating individuals from each groups performance on a culminating unit assessment. However,
difficulties implementing the collaborative technology precluded this hypothesis. It was further
hypothesized that this success would increase at-risk students engagement with traditional
public school and decrease their desire to attend alternative programs, as evidenced by a pre- and
post-unit survey of student attitudes toward public school. Those same difficulties precluded this
hypothesis as well.
The new hypotheses became (1) that difficulties with technology integration would
frustrate all students and decrease their desire to attend the school; and (2) that difficulties with
technology integration would interrupt the flow of instruction and negatively influence students
performance on the culminating unit exam.
Theoretical Framework
This research was built upon the classical theory of social constructivism, which posited
that people learn by constructing knowledge, or making meaning (Atherton, 2013), in
collaboration with other people. The social constructivist theory was relevant to the hypothesis
of this research, which sought to determine quantitative support for collaboration-based digital
augmentation of public school curricula.
Definition of Terms
Several terms were used in this study in research- and education-specific contexts. The
term at-risk students was used to signify students who met a specified set of criteria regarding
motivation, family history, and personal history. In X County, Georgia, students considered atrisk of failing were identified by truancy, disciplinary infractions, or teacher reports of academic
difficulty (Field, 2011).

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

The term cherry-picking refers to the careful selection of students for a particular
program. Charter schools have been accused of selecting and admitting only the best students to
attend the school and thus skewing their performance data in their favor (Knaak & Knaak, 2013).
The term collaborative digital augmentation refers to the addition of a collaborative
digital element to a traditional classroom approach to learning. This study relied on Vygotskys
theory of social constructivism to support the hypothesis that collaborative digitization of
traditional public school courses would increase students learning and desire to attend the class.
The term Community of Inquiry refers to a method of instruction that supported social
construction of knowledge through questioning situations, concepts, and experiences (Swan,
Garrison, & Richardson, 2009).
The term inclusion classes referred to classes that included students documented as
having an academic disability. According to the U.S. Department of Education website
ParentCenterHub.org, these include students with autism, deaf-blindness, deafness,
developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple
disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech
or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, or visual impairment, including blindness (Alizo,
2014).
The term lemon-dropping refers to the performance-based intentional exclusion of
students from a particular program. Charter schools have been accused of sending students who
are underperforming away and thus skewing their performance data in their favor (Knaak &
Knaak, 2013).
The term charter schools refers to schools that receive public funds but do not have to
operate under school board policies. Charter school directors are free to implement whatever

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

curricular, day-structuring, and classroom student/teacher ratio they desire.

The term traditional public schools refers to schools that are 100% publically-funded.
They receive locally-determined amounts of money per student and, with school board oversight
and within legal parameters, are mostly free to choose how to spend the money. They are
typically cement-block structures with one classroom for each teacher amongst which students
travel at specified times throughout the day. Traditional schools must adhere to all county school
board policies and are not free to choose alternative forms of day structuring or academic testing.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study had several limitations. Because of the specifics of the population needed for
the purposes of this study, only four classes of students were studied. The relatively small
sample size was 94 students, and the disaggregated data reflected even smaller population
samples. The participants were not taught by the same teacher; thus, an additional limitation was
the possible impact of the differences in the two teachers styles and delivery. To mitigate the
limitations, a survey instrument reliability-tested at an alpha coefficient of 0.85 in a previous
study (Bibik, Goodwin, & Omega-Smith, 2007) was used to assess the students attitudes
towards the 9th grade Literature & Composition course before and after implementation of the
treatment variable.
This study was delimited to the at-risk population that dominated the school choice
market (Barbour & Siko, 2012) and had yet to find consistent academic gains in choice schools
(Barbour & Siko, 2012; Grigg, 2012; Knaak & Knaak, 2013). The at-risk population was the
ultimate focus of this study and students enrolled in advanced or gifted courses were excluded.
This study was also delimited to one unit of study, the Monster Odyssey Unit, in one
course level, 9th grade, of one curricular area, Literature and Composition, a course taught at this

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

level by both teachers who each agreed to take part in the study. Because this was the only unit
the teachers would implement simultaneously, other units and courses were excluded.
This study was further delimited to two relevant questions on the pre-and post-unit
survey: (1) Do you like school?; and (2) Please indicate your enjoyment of English class [on a
Likert-style scale].
This research was delimited to a quantitative experimental method. Other research
methods did not provide the comparative quantitative data needed to ascertain whether
collaborative digitization increases student performance and desire to attend the school.
Significance of the Study
Originally, the intentions of this study were three-fold: (1) to add to the current research
promoting collaborative construction of knowledge in the traditional public school classroom;
(2) to inform the practice of local and national public school teachers; and (3) to call for systemic
change that could both improve student performance and re-engage students and parents
considering alternative education models. Current research does not directly address how to
change the dissatisfaction with traditional public school felt by the at-risk students and their
parents who seek alternative school choices. This research was designed to benefit public
educators and administrators in providing support for digital augmentation of coursework and
social constructivist collaboration for at-risk students. Results from this research were intended
to have specific implications for future educational policy related to social constructivist learning
and digital augmentation of traditional public school coursework.
Unfortunately, technological difficulties at the school made implementation of the study
as proposed problematic, and the lack of a shared vision for technology integration made it easy
for the teachers to return to their no-technology methods. Few of the collaborative technology

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

10

assignments were attempted, and none were completed in full. The teachers cited several
problems that interfered with their ability to implement the collaborative technology
assignments: (1) the schools network connection was down during several attempts; (2) few of
the school laptops and iPads worked correctly, all were aged and worn from student use, and
none had been updated recently; and (3) downloading Google Drive on the iPads took most of a
class period, and the application did not remain on the iPads for subsequent users or subsequent
use by the same users. Because these problems with the technology infrastructure frustrated the
students and teachers and resulted in failure of the ultimate goals of this research, the research
focus was changed.
The data ultimately collected thus assessed whether problems with technology
infrastructure influenced students attitudes and performance. The problems implementing this
study have implications beyond the original purpose, and the significance of these implications
are four-fold: (1) to add to the current research promoting significant funding for technology
infrastructure that can support BYOT innovations; (2) to add to the current research emphasizing
schools and counties development of a shared technology; (3) to inform the practice of local
and national public school teachers; and (4) to call for systemic change that could, if properly
supported with schools technology infrastructures and shared vision plan, both improve student
performance and re-engage students and parents considering alternative education models.
Literature Review
A growing number of parents and students are dissatisfied with the education offered in
traditional schools and are thus seeking alternatives (Deming, Hastings, Kane, & Staiger, 2014;
Gray, 2012; Miller & Lassman, 2013). Many students seeking these alternative modes of
education are considered at-risk (Barbour & Siko, 2012), but the preponderance of the research

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

11

suggests that at-risk students performance suffers when they change schools (Grigg, 2012) and
continues to suffer in both charter (Knaak & Knaak, 2013) and online school environments
(Barbour & Siko, 2012). Re-engaging students and families in appreciation of traditional public
schools may prove a better solution to the apparent inequities, as, some argue, examination of
actual performance data may not support the notion that United States schools are failing at all
(Farhi, 2012), and that the addition of alternative modes of education into the system may do
significant harm (Grigg, 2012; Schwartz, 2009).
School Dissatisfaction as a Misunderstanding
Texas A& M University-Kingston professors Miller and Lassman (2013) lamented the
tendency of public educators at the classroom, administrative, and political levels to weaken
requirements, inflate grades and student egos, and essentially pass out unearned diplomas to
under-educated, disenchanted students. Students and their parents echoed the concerns
expressed by Miller and Lassman regarding traditional public schools, and in seeking other
modes of education, have turned to charter schools and online schools.
These other modes of education exist on the premise that school dissatisfaction is both
aligned with actual decreases in performance data and solvable by providing choice to parents
for whom private school is not a viable option, but research has suggested that each of these
premises is debatable (Farhi, 2012; Schwartz, 2009).
Farhi (2012) noted several areas in which United States public schools are increasingly
successful: (1) significant increases in performance on comparable international assessments,
and (2) a 46% increase in college attendance. Farhi also discussed the relatively new

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

12

disaggregation of testing data into demographic categories, arguing that the previous method of
determining the schools performance in the aggregate may have simply masked the alreadystruggling students difficulties with performance. Thus, he asserted, schools have not worsened;
the new presentation of the data has simply and more reliably demonstrated the equity issues that
were already in existence.
The Problem of Too Much Choice
Schwartz (2009) presented evidence from his own research and that of his peers,
asserting that while some choice has a positive effect on motivation and achievement, too many
options seemed to produce paralysis rather than liberation (p. 396). He attributed this paralysis
to an association between increase in choice options and increase in regret over the choice once
made, increase in anxiety about missing out on the other options, and increase in self-blame for
any perceived difficulty facing the choices accompanying raised expectations. Citing an
increase in the number of clinical depression diagnoses and suicides, he claimed that the increase
in self-blame because of overwhelming choice could be, or could become, a contributing factor.
Hill (2006) highlighted contributing, even inhibiting, factors in order to explain the
performance data disconnect between the idea of school choice and the actual implementation.
The main issue, he argued, was the countrywide lack of alternative school choice supply, an issue
exacerbated by difficulties such as low per-pupil funding, inequitable competition, unstable
rules, uncertain access to facilities, unpredictable costs, and an entrepreneurial learning curve.
He detailed the inequities in political treatments that show preference to traditional public
schools, even scathingly accusing public school officials and vendors of intentional subterfuge
and intrusive oversight measures meant to discover means of sabotaging choice schools

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

13

financial capabilities. He further contended that the problems schools of choice face are the
cause of the generally poor results those schools saw in terms of student achievement increases.
Charter Schools Conflicting Evidence
Overwhelming school dissatisfaction has led to the development of other schooling
options in many communities. Booker, Sass, Gill, and Zimmer (2011) studied the differences in
educational attainment between students in traditional high school settings as compared to
charter settings. They contended that a voucher program for charter schools in the District of
Columbia reflected significantly higher graduation rates and college attendance rates among
students attending schools of their choice. They highlighted the commonalities between charter
schools, Catholic schools, and the DC school voucher program in order to promote a school
culture that supports student choice in education location and a vibrant landscape of education
setting possibilities for middle and high school students.
Knaak and Knaak (2013), however, posited that twenty years worth of charter school
student performance data has yet to yield unequivocally positive results. They renounced the
available research on charter school effectiveness as predominantly biased and unrepresentative
of a comprehensive impact picture. They even asserted that evidence exists of charter schools
cherry picking [and] lemon dropping (p. 49) students in order to inflate their academic
performance data and to strengthen charter schools ability to attract the most highly-motivated
and parent-supported students. The lack of governmental oversight or accountability measures in
Minnesota, where charters began and are most widely integrated, they argued, has left
Minnesotas students no better off after the two decades of the charter school option throughout
the state.

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

14

Foster (2014) reported that charter schools continued to face external difficulties, such as
that of location. Many charters, she claimed, resort to renting abandoned strip malls or sharing
church houses with the churches congregations. Her research was more balanced than Hills
(2006) and offered an updated perspective that, while highlighting that these problems still
existed in February of 2014, also detailed the traditional public school supporters perspectives.
Traditional public school supporters, she explained, did not recognize any subterfuge on their
end, but saw charter schools as ungoverned, mishandled siphons of precious public funds. She
ultimately concluded that a respectful and collaborative coexistence would benefit students,
parents, and teachers in the long run.
While her vision may be ideal, a more practical, immediate approach may prove more
beneficial to all students, particularly those that are disenfranchised by the school choice options.
Male students (Deming, et al., 2014) and students considered at-risk (Barbour & Siko, 2012)
constitute a large portion of the students who are dissatisfied with the traditional public
classroom, and these same groups continue to fail despite the change in mode of education.
Online Schools Conflicting Evidence
Pearcy (2013) detailed his own experiences as a student, teacher, and professor in and of
traditional face-to-face education as compared to online education and found significant value in
online education, citing instructors increase in per-student accountability, the collaborative and
interactive capabilities of effectively-implemented online education, and the increased
opportunities for students to work independently and in greater depth. Likewise, Gould (2014)
restructured the humanities course and reported great success and demonstration of depth of
thinking that far surpassed any done in the preceding traditional public school curriculum format.

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

15

She argued that digital humanities can be effectively integrated into any curriculum to great
effect (Gould, 2014). The case study she presents on the effectiveness of this digitization of her
curriculum supports her assertion that technology may be able to answer the initial concerns of
pro-school/choice parents seeking alternative means of education.
Barbour and Siko (2012) sought qualitative case study data that would reflect the
experiences of at-risk high school students enrolled in a supplemental online learning program.
At-risk students, they assert, are a large population of online learners but are neglected in the
research. Their findings suggest that students who struggle with motivation in the traditional
public classroom struggle even more in online environments. Their research subject, nicknamed
Kevin, demonstrated characteristics that aligned with this assessment. However, the lack of a
collaborative or mentor element in Kevins experience with online education suggests that the
methodology may be more to blame than Kevins status as an at-risk learner.
Still, Barbour and Sikos (2012) findings were substantiated by Thompson, Miller, and
Franz (2013), who collaborated on a qualitative case study analysis of three non-traditional
students who failed one online education course and opted to repeat the course in a face-to-face
setting instead. They associated the failure of the online courses with problems inherent in
online education (Thompson, et al., 2013, p. 240): students who struggle to self-regulate in the
classroom despite the support of educators and peers may find even greater difficulty selfregulating without the dedicated time and extra supports. In order to alleviate those difficulties,
the researchers supported the implementation of a Community of Inquiry model in which
students socially construct knowledge.
Keeping Students in Public School

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

16

Social constructivist learning (Atherton, 2013) provides social support and encourages
the self-regulation that Thompson, et al. (2013) discussed as lacking in online education
environments. By implementing collaborative digitization, it is likely that educators can promote
educational and social equity for the at-risk students disenfranchised by both the current
traditional public school methods and the school choice options available to them. Fernndez
and Valverde (2014) designed, implemented, and evaluated a Community of Inquiry-based
training program for a typically underserved population of gypsy women in Rome, Italy. The
researchers were careful to create an online learning environment that mimicked the social
processes of the building of knowledge that take place in the negotiation of meanings in the
classroom (Fernndez & Valverde, 2014, p. 98). The researchers reported resulting positive
educational and personal gains for the women.
Students are exceedingly social online. They tend to feel disconnected from public school
specifically because it does not mirror the high access to Internet technology they have at home
(Kolikant, 2009), and thus the potential for using that social structure as a learning tool is
thwarted. Students bring their mobile devices with them to school and use them socially as often
as possible, but their academic usage is minimized, and many schools even retain prohibitive
policies (Aguino, 2014) against these devices, which they consider more distracting than useful
for student learning. Even schools that have lifted the restrictions and encouraged technology
implementation and use of personal devices for learnig, however, experience hurdles.
Hurdles to this Solution
Researchers Laferrire, Hamel, and Searson (2013) studied four schools and discovered
twelve exemplar hurdles to effective and robust technology integration. One school struggled to
fully implement the collaborative technology because of funding delays and leaders who were

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

17

not empowered by the available technology. They concluded that successful implementation of
technology integration [is] a process of overcoming obvious as well a culturally entrenched
barriers (Laferrire, Hamel, & Searson, 2013, p. 471.) Obvious barriers include difficulties with the
technology infrastructure and with equitable access to it. Culturally entrenched barriers include
teacher perception of technologys usefulness in the classroom and a strong and clear shared
vision for collaborative technology implementation (Kolikant, 2009).
Library Search
The research materials used for this proposal were gathered through a systematic search
of Kennesaw State Universitys library database for information relevant to dissatisfaction with
public school, charter school and choice school effectiveness, and social constructivist teaching
impact. The following search terms and variations on them were utilized by the researcher
before implementation of the study: school dissatisfaction; charter school performance data;
online school performance data; students attitudes survey, social constructivism
engagement. As the difficulties with implementation presented themselves, the researcher
shifted research focus and included the following search terms as well: infrastructure problems
for technology integration, barriers to technology integration in schools, and problems with
technology implementation in schools.
Summary
Dissatisfaction with public school may be based on a misunderstanding of publicized
performance data (Farhi, 2012) and of misrepresented or biased charter school performance data
(Knaak & Knaak, 2013; Schwartz, 2009) that does not consistently demonstrate gains for male
students (Deming, Hastings, Kane, & Staiger, 2014). Online education has not demonstrated
academic gains for students considered at-risk (Siko, 2012), but the implementation of a

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

18

Community of Inquiry (Thompson, et al., 2013) based on the theory of social constructivism
(Atherton, 2013) as a means of digitally augmenting coursework (Gould, 2014; Pearcy, 2013) in
traditional public schools may have the potential to re-engage at-risk students with the traditional
public school environment. However, collaborative technology integration is often inhibited by
physical and cultural barriers, like network infrastructure problems and educators lack of a true
shared vision for collaborative technology integration (Kolikant, 2009). This research sought to
determine whether the digital augmentation of a unit of study in an inclusive 9th Literature &
Composition course would have a positive effect on at-risk students performance and desire to
attend the school. Because the technology infrastructure and the lack of a strong shared vision at
the research location did not support the studys designed implementation, the data reflected a
different issue: the influence of technology infrastructure problems on student attitudes and
performance.
Methodology
Research Design
This study sought to measure a quantifiable distinction in performance data and in desire
to attend traditional public school. A quantitative approach was selected in order to measure the
statistical significance. An experimental design measured the treatment populations results in
relation to the non-treatment populations results in order to determine a correlation between
digital course augmentation difficulties and overall performance, digital course augmentation
difficulties and at-risk student performance, digital course augmentation difficulties and overall
desire to attend the school, and digital course augmentation difficulties and at-risk students
desire to attend the school. As demonstrated in Appendix A, the control group in this study
learned the unit as taught without collaborative digital augmentation, and the treatment group

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

19

attempted to learn the unit as taught with collaborative digital augmentation.

Participants
Teacher assistance was determined by informal teacher interviews at the school where the
research was conducted. The participants included two volunteer teachers and their four classes
of students. The teachers teach multiple inclusion classes of the same course, 9th grade Literature
and Composition, and two of the classes per teacher encompassed the participating students. The
classes were inclusion classes that included 30-plus students each, totaling 134 student
participants. A total of 42 of those students were documented as at-risk for failure either through
an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or through teacher or administrator Response to
Intervention (RTI) evaluation by the end of the study. The data was disaggregated in order to
determine the impact on the at-risk students specifically and compared to the data for those
students not considered at-risk.
Instrumentation
Students in the control group required access to a regular classroom and regular
classroom materials, including but not limited to textbooks, paper, and writing utensils, during
most school days, but access to the internet was also be required either via personal electronic
devices or media center visits on some days. Students in the treatment group also required
access to iPads, laptops, smart phones, and Internet tools.
The pre- and post-unit survey (Appendix B) is a modified version of a survey used in
previous related research by Bibik, Goodwin, and Omega-Smith (2007). The section relevant to
this research was reliability tested at an alpha coefficient of 0.76 for section 1, 0.85 for section 2,
and 0.96 for section 3. Modifications to befit this research were the omission of section 1
questions irrelevant to this context (including How many hours per day do you watch TV?,

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

20

Do you smoke cigarettes?, Do you drink alcohol?, and Do you use any illegal drugs?), the
inclusion of answer options Yes and No for questions 1 (Do you enjoy school?), 2 (Are
you involved in any school sponsored extracurricular activity?), and 3 (Do you participate in
activities outside school?) and replacement of the term physical education with the term
public school in sections 2 and 3. Students identified as at-risk received surveys marked with a
small dot in the top right corner.
The unit exam (Appendix C) is a summative tool used to measure students understanding
of and ability to write knowledgeably about The Odyssey, the major text studied during the unit.
Both students in the control groups and the treatment groups were tested using this instrument in
order to determine whether digital augmentation problems correlated with lower achievement on
this summative measure.

Procedures
Prior to the unit implementation, students in both classes took a survey (Appendix B) to
determine their attitudes regarding and desire to attend traditional public schools. Survey
responses were categorized into four sets: (1) control group students not at-risk of failing; (2)
treatment group students at-risk of failing; (3) control group students not at-risk of failing; and
(4) treatment group students at-risk of failing. These same students took the survey again after
the unit, and the information was analyzed in those categories in order to determine a correlation
between digital collaboration difficulties and decrease in desire to attend traditional public
school.
Students in both the control and treatment groups were also assessed using one
summative assessment: The Odyssey Exam (Appendix C). The design initially included use of

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

21

the essay portion of The Monster Project (Appendix D), but inclement weather delayed unit
implementation and this project was not completed. These assessments were created in
collaboration with the classroom teachers and were designed to gauge student understanding of
content and associated creative skills. Results were analyzed for overall student performance
differences and categorical student performance differences.
Reliability and Validity
Appendix A demonstrates the treatment variables applied to the unit as experienced by
the dependent groups. The integration of social constructivist digital augmentation of unit
materials and development toward assessment goals are demonstrated in the Appendix A table.
Each assignment in the column labeled Control Group: Class A is presented with a
predominance of non-digital tools and in-class collaboration only because this is how the unit
was designed by the teacher participants; in the column labeled Treatment Group: Class B, the
assignments were digitally augmented to include a predominance of paperless, social
constructivist learning. Appendix C and Appendix D present summative assessments on the unit
materials studied using the assignments in Appendix A; these summative assessments were
designed by the participating teachers to assess student performance regarding the specific
content studied. The summative assessment presented valid data as evidenced by the summative
assessments alignment with the content studied. Two summative assessments were developed in
order to assess the reliability of any statistical differences in performance data between control
group and the treatment group, but implementation difficulties and inclement weather precluded
use of the Appendix D assessment.
The pre- and post-survey (Appendix B) is a slightly modified version of a survey
reliability-tested at alpha coefficient of 0.76 for section 1, 0.85 for section 2, and 0.96 for section

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

22

3 (Bibik, Goodwin, & Omega-Smith, 2007) to determine student attitudes related to physical
education classes in Delaware. Content irrelevant to this proposed research context were omitted
to mitigate potential construct-irrelevance variance. Yes and No options in Section 1 of the
survey were included to increase the quantitatively measurability of data in that section. The
term physical education was replaced with public education in remaining questions in order
to increase the validity of the instrument for this study. Surveys distributed to students
considered at-risk were lightly marked in order to disaggregate the collected data in search of the
specific impact on at-risk students attitudes.
Protection of Human Subjects
Conducting experimental research on engagement levels may lead to control group
resentment toward the treatment group, the teachers, and the researcher. In order to mitigate this
possibility, the control group and treatment group were established as separate classes.
Additionally, the teacher participants agreed to explain the relevance of the study to both groups
and to assert the implications this study could have for their future teachers use of technology
and social constructivist learning. Students names or other personal identification data were not
shared in any way, and teachers names were changed to protect their students identities as well
as to ensure their comfort with the experiment.
Data Presentation
Table 1 presents the raw pre- and post-survey data (see Appendix B) for the two critical
survey elements: (1) Do you enjoy school?; and (2) Please indicate how much you enjoy
English class. To answer question one, survey participants could choose to circle Yes or No.
Participants responses were dummy coded for data analysis, with Yes converted to 1 and
No converted to 2. The dummy-coded reponses were collected and disaggregated in the

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

23

table for analysis. To answer question two, participants were provided a Likert-type scale from
one to five, with one indicating Not at all and five indicating Very much. Their responses
were collected and disaggregated in the table for analysis.

Table 2 presents the raw Odyssey exam assessment data. Each number represents a students
score on the exam out of a possible 100 points. The data were collected at the conclusion of the attempted
study protocol implementation. Students test scores were disaggregated into Tech and non-Tech then
further disaggregated into At-risk and Not at-risk categories.

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

24

Tables 3, 4, and 5 present the statistical analyses of the data in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 presents a two-tailed
t-test analysis of the differences between At-Risk and Not At-Risk students attitudes about school and English
class before implementation of the treatment variable. Table 4 presents a two-tailed t-test analysis of the differences
between At-Risk and Not At-Risk students performance data in Tech and No Tech classes after
implementation of the treatment variable. Table 5 presents a two-tailed t-test analysis of the At-Risk and Not AtRisk students attitudes about school and English class in after implementation of the treatment variable.

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

25

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

26

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

27

Data Analysis
Before the application of the treatment variable, a paired-sample t-test was used to
determine whether there are statistically significant differences between At-Risk and Not At-Risk
students attitudes about school and English class. Results in Table 3 are divided into the two
critical survey elements most relevant to the research question: (1) Do you enjoy school? and
(2) Please indicate how much you enjoy English class. Participants answered the first question

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

28

by circling Yes or No. Those responses were recorded in the raw survey data chart (see Table
1) and converted to dummy codes (Yes = 1; No = 2) for binary analysis. Survey results
indicated no significant difference between At-Risk and Not At-Risk students attitudes toward
school (p = 0.86; t = 1.99; df = 62; two-tailed) prior to implementation of the treatment variable
(see Table 3). Participants answered the second question using a Likert-style scale, listing a
number between one and five beside the entry for English class. A 1 indicated that the surveyed
participant did not like English class at all, and a 5 indicated that the surveyed participant liked
English very much. Survey results indicated no significant difference between At-Risk and Not
At-Risk students attitudes toward English class (p = 0.34; t = 1.99; df = 62; two-tailed) prior to
implementation of the treatment variable (see Table 3).
After the application of the treatment variable, a paired-sample t-test was used to
determine statistical significance on the unit exam performance of (1) the Not At-Risk, Tech
group compared to the Not At-Risk, Non-Tech group; and (2) the At-Risk, Tech group compared
to the At-Risk, Non-Tech group (see Table 4). Performance was measured by each participants
grade on the unit exam (see raw data in Table 2). The mean for Not At-Risk, Tech participants
(M = 83.4) was slightly higher than the mean for Not At-Risk, Non-Tech participants (M = 80.4),
but the difference in means not statistically significant (p = 0.32; t = 1.99; df = 79; two-tailed).
Likewise, the difference in the means for At-Risk, Tech participants (M = 69.4) and At-Risk,
Non-Tech participants (69.9) was not statistically significant (p = 0.91; t = -0.1; df = 40; twotailed).
At the conclusion of the unit, participants were again provided the attitudes survey.
Paired sample t-tests were used to determine differences in attitude data between the four
groupings (see Table 5). Attitude data were again collected for the two critical survey elements,

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

29

(1) Do you enjoy school?, and (2) Please indicate how much you enjoy English class.
Survey element (1) responses from participants in the Not At-Risk, Tech and Not At-Risk, NonTech were compared. The difference in means between the groupings (Not At-Risk, Tech M =
1.28; Not At-Risk, Non-Tech M = 1.38) were not statistically significant (p = 0.37; t = -0.8; df =
64; two-tailed). Responses to survey element (2) from the same groupings were analyzed (Not
At-Risk, Tech M = 3.1; Not At-Risk, Non-Tech M = 2.75). The difference in the means was
again not significant (p = 0.34; t = 0.96; df = 58; two-tailed).
Likewise, At-Risk, Tech and At-Risk, Non-Tech attitude data were collected for the two
critical survey elements, (1) Do you enjoy school?, and (2) Please indicate how much you
enjoy English class. Survey element (1) responses from participants in the At-Risk, Tech and
At-Risk, Non-Tech were compared. The difference in means between the groupings (At-Risk,
Tech M = 1.63; At-Risk, Non-Tech M = 1.54) was not statistically significant (p = 0.59; t = 0.54;
df = 32; two-tailed). Responses to survey element (2) from the same groupings were analyzed
(At-Risk, Tech M = 2.87; At-Risk, Non-Tech M = 2.25). The difference in the means was not
significant (p = 0.17; t = 1.41; df = 26; two-tailed).
Findings/Conclusion
Attempts at collaborative technology implementation were thwarted by technology
infrastructure problems and inclement weather delays. This research sought to thus address
whether students would respond more negatively and perform worse after fumbled attempts at
collaborative technology integration interrupted the flow of instruction. Statistical analysis of
student attitudes and performance indicated that those fumbled attempts did not negatively
influence student attitudes or performance in any compared groupings (see Tables 4 and 5). The
initial goal was to determine whether effective collaborative technology implementation would

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

30

improve attitudes and performance of all students but especially the underserved at-risk
population. Further research will need to be conducted in order to answer that important
question.
These findings have important implications for educators. This study was completed
using two teachers classes of students and those two teachers are interpersonally and
professionally different. Likewise, the student populations were ethnically, socio-economically,
and cognitively diverse. The findings are thus generalizable beyond the confines of this study,
and the resulting implications are significant, even if the findings were not. One important
conclusion is that even fumbled attempts at collaborative technology integration provide
important insight about a schools true technology infrastructural capacity, and insight from a
true implementation perspective is critical in schools and districts promoting student technology
use initiatives. It is also important, then, for schools and counties to adopt and espouse a shared
vision for technology integration so that teachers will recognize collaborative technology as a
priority. Also, and not to be discounted, it is important to emphasize that the attempts did not
negatively impact the students in any way. They tried it; it did not work; they performed and felt
as they otherwise would have, despite the frustrations they faced. Educators can rest assured that
any attempts they make will also do no harm, and though the potential of collaborative
technology is in its research-based infancy, public school teachers fumbling toward increasing
public school appeal and student performance may end up doing some good.

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

31

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

32

References
Alizo, M. (2014). Categories of disability under IDEA. Retrieved from
www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/categories/.
Aguino, P. (2014). Integration of Mobile Devices into High School Classrooms: Engagement or
Distraction? Unpublished manuscript, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC.
Atherton, J. S. (2013) Learning and teaching: Constructivism in learning [On-line: UK]
Retrieved 5 December 2014 from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm
Bibik, J. M., Goodwin, S. C., & Omega-Smith, E. M. (2007). High school students' attitudes
toward physical education in Delaware. Physical Educator, 64(4), 192-204.
Booker, K., Sass, T. R., Gill, B., & Zimmer, R. (2011). The effects of charter high schools
on educational attainment. Journal of Labor Economics, 29(2), 377-415.
Barbour, M. K., & Siko, J. P. (2012). Virtual schooling through the eyes of an at-risk
student: A case study. European Journal of Open, Distance And E-Learning, (1),
Butler, J. S., Carr, D. A., Toma, E. F., & Zimmer, R. (2013). Choice in a world of new school
types. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 32(4), 785-806.doi:10.1002/pam.21711
Deming, D. J., Hastings, J. S., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2014). School choice, school

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

quality, and postsecondary attainment. American Economic Review, 104(3), 991-1013.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.3.991
Farhi, P. (2012). Flunking the test. American Journalism Review, 34(1), 26-31.
Fernndez, M., & Valverde, J. (2014). A community of practice: An intervention model based
on computer supported collaborative learning. Comunicar, 21(42), 97-105.
doi:10.3916/C42-2014-09
Field. L. (2011, September 14). Grant targets at-risk students. The Marietta Daily Journal.
Retrieved from http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/15509081/articleGrant-targets-at-risk-students.
Foster, A. (2014). Time for dtente between charter and traditional public schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 95(5), 18-23.
Gould, A. (2014). Doing humanities scholarship online: A case study for the literary digital
humanities writing course. Interdisciplinary Humanities, 31(1), 23-41.
Gray, N. L. (2012). School choice and achievement: The Ohio charter school experience.
CATO Journal, 32(3), 557-579.
Grigg, J. (2012). School enrollment changes and student achievement growth: A case study

33

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

34

in educational disruption and continuity. Sociology of Education, 85(4), 388-404.

doi:10.1177/0038040712441374
Hallinan, M., & Kubitschek, W. N. (2012). A comparison of academic achievement and
adherence to the common school ideal in public and Catholic schools. Sociology of
Education, 85(1), 1-22. doi:10.1177/0038040711431586
Hill, P. T. (2005). The supply side of choice. Journal of Education, 186(2), 9-25.
Knaak, W. C., & Knaak, J. T. (2013). Charter schools: Educational reform or failed initiative?.
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(4), 45-53.
Kolikant, Y. B. (2009). Students' Perceptions of the Appropriateness and Usefulness of the
Internet for Schoolwork and the Value of School. Journal Of Educational Computing
Research, 41(4), 407-429
Laferrire, T., Hamel, C., & Searson, M. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of
technology integration in educational settings: a case study. Journal Of Computer
Assisted Learning, 29(5), 463-473. doi:10.1111/jcal.12034
Loeb, S., Valant, J., & Kasman, M. (2011). Increasing choice in the market for schools: Recent
reforms and their effects on student achievement. National Tax Journal, 64(1), 141-163.
Miller, N.W. & Lassman, M.E. (2013). What are we teaching our students?. Education,

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

35

134(2), 167-171.
Schwartz, B. (2009). Incentives, choice, education and well-being. Oxford Review Of Education,
35(3), 391-403. doi:10.1080/03054980902934993
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R. & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online
learning: the Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.) Information
Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning
Frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 43-57.
Thompson, N.L., Miller, N.C., & Franz, D.P. (2013). Comparing online and face-to-face
learning experiences for nontraditional students: A case study of three online teacher
education candidates. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 233251.

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

36
Appendix A
Digital Augmentation Plan

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

37
Appendix B
Survey Instrument

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

38

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

39

Appendix C
Unit Assessment: The Odyssey Exam

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

40

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

41

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

42
Appendix D

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

43

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

44

FUMBLED TECH INITIATIVE

45