IMPACTFUL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES OF ONE-TO-ONE ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

LIST <strong>OF</strong> FIGURESFigure1. Levels of the Educational Digital Divide (Holhfeld et al., 2008) ............................... 42. Hohlfeld et al.’s (2008) model of the Educational Digital Divide ............................ 263. Distribution of participant group knowledge of student learning ............................. 89xii
LIST <strong>OF</strong> APPENDICESAppendixA. Student Technology Survey .................................................................................... 227B. Group A Administrator Interview Protocol ............................................................ 232C. Group B Administrator Interview Protocol ............................................................ 236D. Student Focus Group Protocol ................................................................................ 240E. Group A Teacher Focus Group Protocol ................................................................ 242F. Group B Teacher Focus Group Protocol ................................................................ 246xiii
Page 1 and 2: IMPACTFUL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Page 3 and 4: Dedicated to my wife, Lisa.Your unw
Page 5 and 6: IMPACTFUL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Page 7 and 8: To the research participants, I wan
Page 9 and 10: Differences Between Group A and Gro
Page 11: 17. Summary of findings for Changes
Page 15 and 16: 2be effective and sustainable. Howe
Page 17 and 18: 4the Educational Digital Divide to
Page 19 and 20: 6to one-to-one student laptop progr
Page 21 and 22: 8potential in order to seize these
Page 23 and 24: 10used to benefit and empower parti
Page 25 and 26: 12While there are several documente
Page 27 and 28: 14noted as a central factor in the
Page 29 and 30: 16spreadsheet tools, etc.), (2) ena
Page 31 and 32: 18Anytime Anywhere Learning project
Page 33 and 34: 20Educational Digital Divide by ins
Page 35 and 36: 22Chapter Two: Literature ReviewInt
Page 37 and 38: 24Educational Digital Divide in U.S
Page 39 and 40: 26Digital Divide has three levels:
Page 41 and 42: 28students. As such, the remainder
Page 43 and 44: 30teachers in low SES classrooms fo
Page 45 and 46: 32linguistic backgrounds, participa
Page 47 and 48: 34technology skills, gaps in civic
Page 49 and 50: 36However, if some policy change we
Page 51 and 52: 38Helping Teachers Progress Through
Page 53 and 54: 40the project as part of the Teache
Page 55 and 56: 42Increased teacher workload. In bo
Page 57 and 58: 44classroom and less ‘disbursers
Page 59 and 60: 46al., 1998; Russell et al., 2004).
Page 61 and 62: 48students engaged in collaborative
Page 63 and 64:
50Researchers showed that students
Page 65 and 66:
52claimed that along with distracti
Page 67 and 68:
54non-ACOT classrooms in vocabulary
Page 69 and 70:
56Insufficient Measure of Student L
Page 71 and 72:
58one-to-one student laptop program
Page 73 and 74:
602004, Rockman et al., 2004). Next
Page 75 and 76:
62Yet one-to-one student laptop pro
Page 77 and 78:
64laptop programs is insufficient.
Page 79 and 80:
66Chapter Three: MethodologyIntrodu
Page 81 and 82:
68primary data source. Teachers and
Page 83 and 84:
70Research DesignThis study employe
Page 85 and 86:
72Research SitesThe research sites
Page 87 and 88:
74Table 3Research sites with school
Page 89 and 90:
76parents has received a high schoo
Page 91 and 92:
78the division of socioeconomic sta
Page 93 and 94:
80pedagogy and curriculum. In 2006,
Page 95 and 96:
82At each site, two administrators
Page 97 and 98:
84administrator, I identified and s
Page 99 and 100:
86As a tool for comparison between
Page 101 and 102:
88their non-low SES peers. The adde
Page 103 and 104:
90This breadth of knowledge across
Page 105 and 106:
92conditions of its students being
Page 107 and 108:
94Educational Digital Divide and as
Page 109 and 110:
96Chapter Four: FindingsIntroductio
Page 111 and 112:
98Access to Computers and the Inter
Page 113 and 114:
100Table 10Counts and expected coun
Page 115 and 116:
102Table 11t-test results for class
Page 117 and 118:
104Table 13t-test results for stude
Page 119 and 120:
106SummaryThe data showed that Educ
Page 121 and 122:
108qualitative data are presented i
Page 123 and 124:
110of teachers, students, and admin
Page 125 and 126:
112from teachers’ self-assessment
Page 127 and 128:
114Not surprisingly, improvements i
Page 129 and 130:
116offered fewer opportunities for
Page 131 and 132:
118conduct just-in-time research, f
Page 133 and 134:
120their motivation, engagement, an
Page 135 and 136:
122gave an example of this type of
Page 137 and 138:
124Students across the five researc
Page 139 and 140:
126Participants at Hemings and Ulys
Page 141 and 142:
128to laptops. A Ulysses High Schoo
Page 143 and 144:
130Parallel to students’ claims t
Page 145 and 146:
132culture, teachers said they freq
Page 147 and 148:
134skills, nor the depth of informa
Page 149 and 150:
136needed explicit instruction in a
Page 151 and 152:
138workforce. To land higher paying
Page 153 and 154:
140because they often failed to dem
Page 155 and 156:
142communications and to disclose a
Page 157 and 158:
144Table 18Summary of findings for
Page 159 and 160:
146exchange information over email
Page 161 and 162:
148Quantity and QualityAccording to
Page 163 and 164:
150at a lower quality - being less
Page 165 and 166:
152and Ulysses High School said the
Page 167 and 168:
154designed for recreation and soci
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
158were carried in padded bags, sto
Page 173 and 174:
160Nonetheless, students at all fiv
Page 175 and 176:
162data within the past month. It s
Page 177 and 178:
164students developing this discipl
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
168resources for low SES students i
Page 183 and 184:
170and had developed intrepid attit
Page 185 and 186:
172laptop to research salary scales
Page 187 and 188:
174Across the academic areas - scho
Page 189 and 190:
176Chapter Five: Discussion and Rec
Page 191 and 192:
178(Clark & Gorski, 2002; Warschaue
Page 193 and 194:
180Deeper understanding of content.
Page 195 and 196:
182The increases in constructivist
Page 197 and 198:
184development of higher order thin
Page 199 and 200:
186and teachers’ claims that the
Page 201 and 202:
188these activities were described
Page 203 and 204:
190The findings for both this study
Page 205 and 206:
192programs had long-term impacts o
Page 207 and 208:
194research showed that students ex
Page 209 and 210:
196maintain a possession with high
Page 211 and 212:
198academic student learning outcom
Page 213 and 214:
200impacts on students’ academic
Page 215 and 216:
202First, the dearth of available r
Page 217 and 218:
204This finding has implications at
Page 219 and 220:
206which addresses the first level
Page 221 and 222:
208programs within their schools to
Page 223 and 224:
210In order for this research to im
Page 225 and 226:
212programs in low SES schools are
Page 227 and 228:
214which would make program sustain
Page 229 and 230:
216Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (19
Page 231 and 232:
218Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & S
Page 233 and 234:
220Lowther, D. L., Moss, S. M., & M
Page 235 and 236:
222Notebooks for Schools by Toshiba
Page 237 and 238:
224Tan, C. L., & Morris, J. S. (200
Page 239 and 240:
Appendices226
Page 241 and 242:
228Explanation of Survey QuestionsT
Page 243 and 244:
230Question 6. This question was de
Page 245 and 246:
232Appendix B: Group A Administrato
Page 247 and 248:
234Explanation of Interview Questio
Page 249 and 250:
236Appendix C: Group B Administrato
Page 251 and 252:
238Explanation of Interview Questio
Page 253 and 254:
240Appendix D: Student Focus Group
Page 255 and 256:
242Appendix E: Group A Teacher Focu
Page 257 and 258:
244Explanation of Focus Group Quest
Page 259 and 260:
246Appendix F: Group B Teacher Focu
Page 261 and 262:
248Explanation of Focus Group Quest
show all

IMPACTFUL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES OF ONE-TO-ONE ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?