Technology in Mathematics 1

Running Head: Technologys Impact on Student Achievement in 6th Grade Mathematics

Effectiveness of Technology Use in Mathematics on Student Achievement

Lacey Gooch
Kennesaw State University

Technology in Mathematics 2

Abstract
With the growing use of technology and the opportunities it presents, implementing
technology-based lessons in the classroom is becoming more popular. The purpose of this study
is to answer the following research questions: How does the use of technology in the classroom
impact student achievement on summative assessments? Does it impact genders differently?
Technology is defined as digital tools and resources for this research study. Within this analysis,
I compared the results of a Number System Fluency summative assessment among three classes
who regularly used technology for learning concepts to two classes who used no technology for
learning the same concepts. The research and data is further broken down to look specifically at
the impact technology had by gender.
As the field of education is always looking for ways to improve teaching and learning,
this study reveals how digital tools and resources may be useful in accomplishing this
improvement. Because I only teach advanced math classes, the study is limited to only one
specific subgroup of students as well as only one subject area.

Technology in Mathematics 3

Introduction and Literature Review

Blogging, collaborating through Google Docs, creating digital stories using VoiceThread
and videos using Animoto, and taking online polls and surveys through Poll Everywhere and
Socrative are just a few options Edutopia (2007) provides for integrating technology in the
classroom (p. 1). With the expanding incorporation of technology in education, I wanted to
research if technology had a substantial impact on student achievement, specifically in math.
Technology, in this research study, is considered to be digital tools and resources. With all that
technology has to offer, I predicted that it would have a positive impact on teaching and learning.
This hypothesis is based on prior research in this area. For example, according to Shelton
(2014), By providing students with tools to engage and create, as well as monitor their own
progress, students are put in the drivers seat and become owners of the learning process,
(personal interview). Because students gain more control over their own learning, I was
interested in knowing how this impacted their achievement.
Unfortunately, while there is much research about technologys impact on teaching and
learning, not all of it is valid. For instance, Education Week (2011) states, The vast majority of
the studies available are funded by the very companies and institutions that have created and
promoted the technology, raising questions of the researchs validity and objectivity, (p. 1).
Because not all research studies can be trusted, I wanted to see firsthand the results using
technology yielded in my own classroom.
Furthermore, technology-based learning is becoming more popular in classrooms
everywhere. According to Purdue University (2015), With the way technology has pervaded
every part of our lives, children quickly lean on technology to help them find the answers to
everyday questions. Educators are keeping pace with this societal shift to tech-focused living by

Technology in Mathematics 4

making classroom learning more engaging and effective with the use of the latest educational
technology, (p. 1). With this becoming such a prevalent method for teaching and learning, I
wanted to know if it truly made a difference on student achievement. Therefore, I performed a
research study to determine the impact technology can make in the classroom, by comparing test
results of classes who frequently who used technology to classes who used no technology during
a specific 6th grade math unit.
Research Design
In order to determine its effectiveness, I used technology 2-3 times a week with three 6th
grade advanced math classes and no technology with the other two advanced classes that I teach.
I compared the test results among the classes that used technology to those that did not. After
teaching all classes the same concepts of factors, multiples, divisibility rules, and decimal
operations, students were given a summative assessment. This assessment was composed of 4
multiple choice questions, 10 constructed response questions, and 2 extended response questions.
I recorded the results in an Excel spreadsheet, created graphs, disaggregated data by gender, and
used numbers to identify students in order to assure confidentiality. I then analyzed this data to
see how technology impacted student achievement on this summative assessment.
Participants and Setting
The research took place at Otwell Middle School, in Forsyth County. Specifically, all
lessons took place within my classroom, which is made up of 6 tables, each with 5 chairs. My
classroom is designed to maximize student engagement and collaboration. All of my classes are
easily comparable, as there are about the same number of students in each class (30), as well as a
close boy to girl ratio in each class. Specifically, a total of 139 students were included in this
research study. Roughly 80% of these students are Caucasian, 10% are African American, and

Technology in Mathematics 5

10% are Asian or mixed race. There was an even spread of each race among all classes.
Furthermore, all of my classes are advanced, so ESOL and SPED students are not included in
this study.
Procedures
As mentioned previously, technology was used 2-3 times a week for three classes, and no
technology was used for two of my classes. For the classes who used technology, it was used for
students to be able to make connections with the concepts being taught to the real-world and
increase the rigor of these concepts. According to Edutopia (2008), Effective tech integration
must happen across the curriculum in ways that research shows deepen and enhance the learning
process. In particular, it must support four key components of learning: active engagement,
participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connection to real-world experts,
(p. 1). Students researched how it could relate to real-life and/or something of specific interest to
them. Furthermore, technology was used as a collaboration tool for students to discuss problem
solving strategies, their way of thinking, and sharing ideas. Students also used technology to
demonstrate their understanding of certain concepts. For instance, they had multiple digital tools
from which to choose to create a brief presentation that explained multiples and factor, how they
relate to life, and how to solve problems involving GCF and LCM.
The two classes where no technology was used were exposed to a traditional style of
teaching. Some days were teacher-led instruction which involved explanation of new concepts.
Other days, students collaborated with one another to complete a task or worksheet for practice
over the concepts already learned. While students did not use technology for any lessons, I did
try to relate the concepts to real-life experiences and student interests when presenting the
information to them. Additionally, instead of using technology to create a brief presentation of

Technology in Mathematics 6

their understanding of factors and multiples, the students in these two classes created posters to
demonstrate their knowledge of these concepts.
Data Collection
All students took the same teacher-created, summative test that assessed their knowledge
of the following concepts: factors, multiples, divisibility rules, and decimal operations. Mastery
of these concepts was considered 70% and above. Exceeding the expectations was considered
90% and above. Anything below 70% was considered not proficient in these concepts and
needing re-teaching. Again, the test included multiple choice, constructed response, and
extended response questions, and all classes learned and were tested over the same concepts.
The results of this test were tabulated in an Excel document according to classes that used
technology and classes that did not. Moreover, the results of the classes who used technology
were separated by gender to determine if there was more of an impact on one gender than the
other.
Data Analysis Methods
After all students took the summative assessment, their grades were separated by those
who had used technology and those who had not. These grades were put into an Excel
spreadsheet, so that I could easily sort scores, calculate the means, run tests, etc. Additionally, an
independent samples t-test was conducted to further compare these test scores. Moreover, the
grades of each group were sorted by letter grade, in order to determine which group had more As
and fewer Fs.
Subsequently, the grades of students who utilized technology were broken down by
gender. The mean was calculated for boys as well as girls. Furthermore, a separate independent

Technology in Mathematics 7

samples t-test was conducted in order to determine the significance of the difference in averages
among these subgroups.
Results
Averages for Technology vs. No Technology Classes

Test Score Averages

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Technology

No Technology

The results of
the technology versus no technology groups were compared in a bar graph, broken down by their
mean scores, shown in Figure 1. After running the t-test, the results revealed that, with the mean
scores of 89.8 for classes who used technology and 85.3 for classes who used no technology,
there was a significant difference between the two groups, with an alpha level of .05 (t=2.81,
df=137, p = .003). Moreover, the number of each letter grade, broken down by technology use,
was calculated and put into a double-bar graph, shown in Figure 2. It is apparent that classes
who used technology scored far more As and fewer Fs than those who used no technology.

Figure 1: Averages on the Summative Assessment

Technology in Mathematics 8

Number of Each Letter Grade for Technology and No Technology Classes

50
40
30
Number of Students

Technology
No Technology

20
10
0

As Bs Cs Fs
Letter Grades

Figure 2: Letter Grades on the Summative Assessment

Additionally, a bar graph was created to compare the mean scores of boys to girls, shown
in Figure 3. The bar graph demonstrates that the boys had a slightly higher average than the
girls. Furthermore, a separate independent samples t-test was conducted in order to determine
the significance of the difference in averages among these subgroups. The mean score for boys
who used technology was 90, while the mean score for girls who used technology was 89.6. The
t-test showed that there was not a significant difference between these results among genders,
with an alpha level of .05 (t=1.2, df=41, p=.244).

Technology in Mathematics 9

Averages for Boys vs. Girls

90
89.9
89.8
89.7
89.6
Mean Scores 89.5
89.4
89.3
89.2
89.1
89

Boys

Girls

Figure 3: Mean Scores by Gender

When comparing the results of the summative assessment between classes who used
technology and classes who used no technology, it was evident that those students who accessed
technology during this unit performed better than those who did not. The results revealed that
more As occurred and actually no Fs appeared in the classes who used technology versus fewer
As and 5 Fs among the classes who used no technology. The t-test that was conducted revealed
that there was a statistically significant difference in the averages between these two types of
classes.
On the contrary, when breaking down the data by gender, there was very little difference
in their averages. It can be concluded that the use of technology within this particular math unit
did not have more of an impact on one gender than the other. Furthermore, the t-test that was
performed showed that there was no significance in the difference of averages among boys and
girls.
Validity and Reliability

Technology in Mathematics 10

While teaching these concepts, all classes were taught by the same teacher, making this
study have high internal validity. Besides the use or no use of technology, all other conditions
were controlled; every class learned the same material in the same delivery method.
Additionally, the results can be considered reliable since all classes were advanced with no
ESOL and SWD students and there was an even distribution of boys and girls in each class.
Moreover, when the tests were graded, they were evaluated using the same scale to score
them. Once again, the tests were all graded by the same person, the teacher. Each question was
worth roughly 6 points, however, partial credit was awarded when available. These partial credit
points were given in the same amount on every test. Thus, this study can be considered valid and
reliable given these factors.
Discussion
Ultimately, the results of this study revealed that there was a significant difference in the
averages of the summative assessment between students who used technology throughout the
unit and those who used no technology. Specifically, the data revealed that the classes using
technology had a higher mean score by almost four points on the assessment than the classes that
did not. There were also more As and fewer Fs earned by the classes who utilized technology
during the lessons. Furthermore, the results comparing the averages of males and females who
used technology revealed that there was really no difference at all in their performances on the
summative assessment. The boys had an average of 90, while the girls had an average of 89.6,
so technology seems to have the same impact on boys as it does girls.
Because my results yielded a positive relationship in the performance on a math,
summative assessments, it would be worth implementing technology use in the classroom when
possible and appropriate for enhancing teaching and learning. It is important to note that

Technology in Mathematics 11

technology was used with the three designated classes, not for simply using technology, but to
improve how students learned the concepts being taught. For instance, students collaborated
through online discussion boards, where they were all able to share and support their thoughts
and ideas, and they were able to research how the concepts about which they were learning
related to real-world experiences that interested them. Overall, using technology to accomplish a
goal better than or that no other means can is what will make the greatest difference in student
achievement.
There are certain studies that show that technology can have a significant impact on
student learning. For example, after performing several studies on computer-based instruction,
Kulik (1994) discovered that students who learned through this method scored in the 64th
percentile on tests compared to only the 50th percentile of students in a controlled setting.
However, he did note that this positive effect was not evident in every subject area. Perhaps if
this study were conducted in another subject area, the results may have differed. Additionally, it
would be interesting to see what impact technology has in different content areas. I would
specifically be curious to see how it may influence scores in a science classroom.
Furthermore, because I teach all advanced classes, completing a similar study with onlevel and co-taught classes could lend different results. I wonder if technology could have a
greater impact on English Language Learners (ELLs) and Students With Disabilities (SWD).
Ultimately, technology can certainly make a difference in student learning and achievement,
regardless of how great or small, and it is a great method for getting students engaged in their
learning. Technology lends itself to influencing teaching and learning in so many ways that there
are many research studies that could be done, about which I would be interested in learning and
viewing those results.

Technology in Mathematics 12

Resources
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011, September 1). Issues A-Z: Technology
in Education. Education Week. Retrieved November 27, 2015 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/.
Edutopia (2007). How to Integrate Technology. Retrieved November 26, 2015 from
http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-implementation
Edutopia. (2008). Why Integrate Technology into the Curriculum?: The Reasons Are Many
Retrieved October 20, 2015 from
http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction.
Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E.L.
Baker, and H.F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in education and training.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Purdue University (2015). Growing Up with Technology. Retrieved November 27, 2015 from
http://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology/resources/growing-up-withtechnology.
Varela, K. (2014). The Connected Classroom. The Aspen Institute. Retrieved October 26, 2015
from http://www.aspeninstitute.org/about/blog/impact-of-technology-in-the-classroom-qand-a-with-jim-shelton.

Technology in Mathematics 13

Appendix A: Summative Assessment

Unit 2 Part 1 Test
_____ 1.) Find the GCF of 72 and 24.
a. 6

b. 8

c. 12

d. 24

_____2.) Find the LCM of 6 and 8.

a.

b. 6

c. 24

d. 48

3. Look at the expression below. Rewrite the expression as a product using the GCF
and distributive property. Then, draw an array to represent the expression.

Equivalent Expression using

GCF

Array

48 +

_____4.) Lauren visits the park every 3 days and goes to the library every 10 days.
If Lauren does both of these today, how many days will pass before Lauren gets to
do them both on the same day again?
a.

7 days

b. 13 days

c. 30 days

d. 60 days

Technology in Mathematics 14

_____5.)

List all of the factors of 32.

Answer:

_____6.)

_____________________________________________

List the first 5 multiples of 15.

Answer:

_____________________________________________

_____7.) Circle the number(s) that 648 is divisible by

2 3 4 5 6 9 10

8.) Is the number 6,282 divisible by the number 9? Explain how you know.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

9.) What is the difference between factors and multiples? Use examples if you like.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10.) Fill in the missing blanks of the table.

Fractions

Decimals

Percents

0.75
_2_
5
25 %
0.3
20 %

Technology in Mathematics 15

11.) What is the sliding of the decimal in the problem below, demonstrating
mathematically?
0.4 6.48
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Directions: Solve the following decimal word problems.
12.) Mark needed gas in his truck so he stops at a gas station. If each gallon costs
$2.19, how much did Mark spend on 21 gallons of gas?

Answer: __________________________
13.) Find the difference of 29 and 16.034

Answer: __________________________
14.) Find the quotient of 20.18 and 0.2.

Answer: __________________________
15.) You and your friend go shopping. You spend $32 and your friend spends
$40.95. How much money did you and your friend spend altogether?

Technology in Mathematics 16

Answer: ___________________________
16.) Explain and correct the mistake made in the problem below. Then, explain
how estimation could have been used to avoid this mistake.
53.021
x
4.6
318126
+ 2120840
2438.966
Explanation for the mistake:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Estimation explanation:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________