equitable technology integration - vanderbilt university

Cross-Cultural Requisites for Reducing Educational and

Digital Divides through Technology Integration

Carolyn J. Heinrich

Patricia and Rodes Hart Professor of Public Policy and Education

Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Peabody College

Professor of Economics, College of Arts and Sciences

Vanderbilt University

230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, USA; +001 615 3221169

Email: [email protected]

Jennifer Darling-Aduana

PhD student in Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Peabody College

Vanderbilt University.


Caroline Martin

Master of Education in International Education Policy and Management

Peabody College, Vanderbilt University


June 2018

Acknowledgments: We thank Mr. Jaime Davila and Vanderbilt University for financial

support of this research. We also thank the school principals and teachers in Dallas

Independent School District and in North Kamagambo, Kenya who opened their classrooms

to observation by the research team and participated in interviews. We also greatly

appreciate the Jiv Daya Foundation and the Lwala Community Alliance (LCA) for their

partnership in this research effort, including support provided by staff in data collection and

other contributions to the research: Esmeralda Garcia-Galvan, Christi Kirshbaum and

Christopher J. Ryan, and LCA staff Staci Sutermaster, Joseph Starnes and Liz Chamberlain.

* Corresponding author; Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place,

Nashville, TN, USA; +001 615 3221169; Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Equitable Technology Integration

1

Abstract

Drawing on sociotechnical and sociocultural theory, this study investigates attributes of

education technology implementation associated with more effective and equitable technology

use within and across distinct cultural contexts in the U.S. and Kenya. We explore how these

features enhance students’ learning and educational experiences, as well as their implications for

reducing educational and digital divides. Using data from classroom observations, interviews,

surveys, and administrative data, we generate evidence on common (and distinctive) challenges

in technology integration. We also investigate cross-cultural factors that constrain or support

consistent access to technology, instructor capacity, student engagement, and opportunities for

personalized learning and feedback. Our findings contribute to the identification of requisites and

supporting factors for successful educational technology integration, as well as policy levers and

school-based strategies that are likely to increase equitable access to quality learning experiences

in schools across the development spectrum.

Keywords: educational technology, educational equity, tablet computer, ICT, digital divide,

comparative education


2

1. INTRODUCTION

In the face of an increasingly competitive, global knowledge economy, governments,

schools, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—in developed and developing nations

alike—are turning to information and communication technology (ICT) as a possible means to

increase student engagement and learning, beginning at the primary school level. Policymakers

also see ICT as a promising strategy for improving access to educational resources and

enhancing teachers’ ability to meet diverse student needs (Herodotou, 2018; Twining,

Raffaghelli, Albion, & Knezek, 2013; Wong, 2008). Accordingly, new efforts to integrate

educational technology are often directed toward schools in low-resource settings (Becker, 2000;

Dimaggio, Hargittai, Celeste & Shafer, 2004; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). Tablets, at

approximately five percent the cost of laptops, may be a more viable option in resource-

constrained contexts and potentially more suitable for younger (primary school) learners

(Herodotou, 2018; Goff, Maylahn, Oates, Oates, & Wujcik, 2015; Heinrich & Good, 2016;

Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, & Bernard, 2015).

Despite this promise, the literature is rife with discussions of the challenges of integrating

technology and ensuring equity in access across a broad range of educational contexts (Hohlfeld

et al., 2008; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Selwyn, 2016). In this research, we delved deeply

into two distinct, low-resource settings—a large urban area in the U.S. and a rural Kenyan

community—in which public schools and their non-profit partners collaborated in implementing

one-to-one tablet initiatives in primary schools to support student learning. In undertaking this

comparative study, we aimed to identify the common challenges that educators encountered in

these diverse primary school contexts, as well as those unique to each setting, to help inform the

cross-cultural requisites for integrating educational technology in ways that reduce educational

and digital divides. Some of the shared challenges across these sites included: facilitating


3

consistent access to technology, building instructor capacity, and increasing student engagement,

digital citizenship, and achievement.

In our analysis, we conceptualized the U.S. and Kenyan contexts as an overlapping

spectrum based on underlying system characteristics, social influences, and facilitating

conditions. The emphasis on cross-cultural lessons in this exploration of tablet integration in

geographically and culturally distinct settings also encourages readers to think outside their own

cultural frame of reference, spurring the scrutiny of assumptions behind educational norms and

eliciting new insights. We address the following key questions in this research context: (1) what

aspects and infrastructure of educational technology implementation are critical to more effective

tablet use within and across culturally distinct, low-resource educational settings, and (2) how

can these crucial factors and supports be cultivated and leveraged to increase equity in learning

opportunities at the primary school level? Findings related to requisites for successful ICT

integration may be particularly relevant to governmental, non-profit, and educational

organizations reckoning with multifarious challenges in implementing technology initiatives in

low-resource settings, while striving to enhance equitable access to quality educational

experiences.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In investigating factors critical to successful educational technology (tablet)

implementation in low-resource contexts and their implications for equity in opportunities for

learning at the primary level, we meld two theoretical approaches: sociotechnical and

sociocultural theory. Sociotechnical theory begins with human action and examines how it

enacts structures embedded in the technology, positing that individuals and their social settings

shape both understandings and use of educational technologies through recurring interactions


4

(Orlikowski, 2000). Sociocultural theory similarly focuses on understanding student learning and

development through their interactions in educational settings, but with a greater emphasis on

social and cultural processes as central to how individuals participate in activities and “how they

draw on artifacts, tools, and social others in learning” (Nasir & Hand, 2006: p. 450; Rogoff,

2003). For example, sociotechnical theory argues that teacher and student use of technology will

be strongly influenced by users' understandings of the properties and functionality of the tablets,

which are in turn affected by individual and shared experiences about what the tools can do and

other capacity factors in the educational setting (e.g., technology support, training,

communications, etc.) (Woolgar, 1996; Orlikowski and Gash, 1994). From sociocultural theory,

we draw in the view that cultural norms and conventions transacted by students and teachers in

the classroom will likewise influence how students understand the properties of the tablets and

whether and how they draw on other individuals and resources in the classroom to support their

learning with them (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Sociocultural theory also stresses that we should not

lose sight of how educational settings, particularly the low-resource contexts we study, are

interleaved with larger societal forces such as those that perpetuate poverty, discrimination and

inequality.

Figure 1 presents a logic model for studying the integration of educational technology in

low-resource settings with attention to cultural norms and equity concerns. For instance, the

types of inputs and level of resources allocated for technology integration—such as the quality of

instructional and technical assistance for supporting tablet use and whether it is adequate given

student and teacher baseline levels of technology experience and expertise—may reflect broader

cultural and societal forces (e.g., equitable school financing) that sociocultural theory encourages

us to consider. In addition, looking to activities in Figure 1, sociotechnical theory motivates us to


5

examine how the ratio of students to tablets in the classroom enables different configurations of

student tablet use, while sociocultural theory may lead us to ask how in the face of higher than

desired student-to-tablet ratios, cultural norms may affect student access to or interactions

around shared devices. The fusing of sociotechnical and sociocultural perspectives also prompts

us to consider not only how investments in teacher professional development help to build

teacher instructional and technical capacities, but also whether cultural norms enhance or hinder

how teacher capacities then translate into increases in student engagement and learning in the

classroom. Through this theory-based investigation, we aim to identify some of the prerequisites

for generating increases in the educational outputs and outcomes shown in Figure 1 through

technology integration, as well as the cross-cultural factors that educators need to attend to in

order to realize the promise of educational technology for increasing equity in learning

opportunities and educational outcomes.

3. LITERATURE ON ICT INTEGRATION IN EDUCATION AND CONCERNS

SPECIFIC TO LOW-RESOURCE CONTEXTS

While public and nonprofit funding for educational technology purchases has narrowed

ICT disparities in primary schools, a range of technological, economic, organizational and social

factors have the potential to contribute to (or reduce) ongoing inequities (racial and

socioeconomic) in the use of educational technology to support student learning (Dimaggio,

2004; Zichur & Smith, 2012; Becker, 2000a; Hohlfeld et al., 2008; Warschauer & Matuchniak,

2010). For example, studies of educational technology use in low-resource settings have found

more turnover and variability in teaching and administrative staff, which hinders planning for

and implementation of educational technology in classrooms (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone,

2004). And even when teachers have confidence in or experience with the technology being

introduced, they may be challenged by disadvantages their instructional environments present,


6

such as larger class sizes and more students with limited technology experience (Warschauer,

Knobel, & Stone, 2004). Prior research suggests that in the face of such constraints, which are

more prevalent in low-resource settings, technology use is more likely to involve lower-order,

“drill and practice” activities rather than higher-order, skills-building classroom work (Becker,

2000b; Warschauer, 2000; Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer, 2006). We aim to understand

how these various factors—which may exacerbate (rather than reduce) inequalities in

opportunity for learning with technology—may be overcome to promote new ways of learning,

instruction tailored to student experiences and skill levels, and greater student engagement and

motivation for learning.

In prior reviews of educational ICT integration, the most common, cross-country barriers

to implementation identified included insufficient teacher technology expertise, ineffective

educational software, access issues, and lack of alignment with educational norms or

expectations (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Pelgrum, 2001; Venezky, 2004). Mndzebel (2013)

identified lack of funding, planning, and professional development as major obstacles to ICT

implementation in Swaziland. Likewise, in Ghana, 85 percent of pre-service teachers reported

that they lacked appropriate training to use ICT (Gyamfi, 2016). Researchers identified

analogous barriers in the United States (U.S.): namely limited access to technology (including

internet connectivity issues), professional development, and support personnel (Miranda &

Russell, 2011). While lack of internet connectivity was observed as a limiting factor across

continents, lack of reliable electricity restricted the utility of technology in studies set in Africa

(Kenya, South Africa) and Asia (Cambodia) (Richardson, 2011; Stols et al., 2015). Multiple

studies have also shown that across contexts, access to technical support, professional

development, and other forms of assistance such as student technical capacity expand the pool of


7

technical expertise that teachers can rely on (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Pelgrum, 2001; Richardson,

2011; Venezky, 2004) and teacher technology use (NSDC, 1995; Stanhope & Corn, 2014).

As the above discussion suggests, researchers have focused primarily on technical issues

and attended less to cultural factors that might vary within and across countries to support or

constrain the effectiveness of ICT integration in increasing student learning and engagement. In

conceptualizing our work, we have strived to integrate the important theoretical and practical

contributions of prior research, while drawing in other sociocultural and contextual factors that

allow us to construct a more holistic depiction of technology integration in low-resource settings

and draw out new insights for educators and policy makers. Toward this end, we describe our

research settings and samples, study data and measures, and methods next.

4. STUDY SAMPLES, DATA AND METHODS

4.1 Cross-country Settings, Samples and Interventions

The initiation of this study began in Dallas Independent School District (DISD), a large,

urban district in the city of Dallas, Texas. With foundation support, DISD introduced tablets to

third through fifth grade classrooms beginning in 2014 (the pilot year). DISD partnered with the

Jiv Daya Foundation, a Dallas-based non-profit, which supported the tablet initiative with an 80

percent subsidy of the tablet purchase costs, as well as the uploading of educational applications,

professional development on their use, and technical support for device integration. DISD

provided administrative data on students attending primary schools in the 2015-16 school year,

which allow us to compare those targeted for tablet distribution with DISD students in other

high-poverty (Title I) primary schools without access to tablets.1 As shown in Table A.1 in

1 A total of seven primary schools received tablets in the 2015-16 school year, but one school declined to participate

in the study. All schools that received tablets qualified as Title I, a federal label applied to schools in which at least

40 percent of students live at or below the poverty line.


8

Appendix A, more than 93 percent of students in these primary schools (treatment and

comparison) qualified for free or reduced lunch, a program provided to students with family

incomes at or below 180 percent of the federal poverty line. In the treatment (tablet) schools, a

significantly higher proportion (88 percent) of students identified as Hispanic, with nearly two-

thirds identified as English Language Learners (ELLs). Most of the third through fifth grade

students in our analytic sample ranged from eight to eleven years of age. The tablets were used

during math, reading, writing, social studies, science, and financial literacy instruction.

Our research investigation expanded to North Kamagambo, Kenya in 2016, where the

Lwala Community Alliance (LCA), a grassroots nonprofit organization, partnered with rural

public schools and Worldreader, an international provider of tablets to developing countries, to

implement a technology initiative in the region. The tablets provided by Worldreader and

distributed by the LCA were equipped with course books and supplementary books for teacher

and student use in three primary schools in the region. The LCA categorized six schools

interested in participating in the initiative into low, middle and high achievement tiers by their

average scores on the 2014 Kenya Certificate for Primary Education (KCPE) test and then

selected one school from each tier for the technology initiative; students in the other three

schools constituted a comparison group. Treatment schools received the tablets in February 2016

in proportion to the number of teachers and students at each school, and the schools distributed

the tablets to students in mixed-age, primary classrooms which served predominately twelve-

and thirteen-year-old students. (See Table A.2 in Appendix A for additional information on

student baseline characteristics in the Kenya treatment schools.) Teachers integrated the tablets

in math, reading, social studies, science, Kiswahili, and religion classes. Although the ages


9

differed between the primary (“Class 6”) students in Kenya and third-fifth grade students in

Dallas, the classrooms in both contexts covered similar curricular content and levels.

The many parallels in the tablet integration efforts in these two (U.S. and Kenyan) low-

resource contexts—with both sites relying on privately subsidized devices and a nonprofit

partner to support implementation and targeting low-income, primary school students of whom

many were learning English as a second language (in an overlapping time period)—enabled us to

apply comparable research methods and instrumentation and to situate these two, cross-country

sites along a continuum of dimensions of learning quality in our analyses. The primary

instrumentation used in data collection was developed and validated in prior research (Burch,

Heinrich, & Good, 2016) and further tested and refined for studying tablet integration in Dallas

and North Kamagambo, Kenya. In addition, for both study sites, the program administrative data

included baseline (pre-) test scores for assessing student achievement and endline (post-) test

scores that enable us to examine associations between student tablet use and changes in their

academic performance relative to other primary schools in each study site. Below, we describe

our study data and measures in greater detail.

4.2 Study Data and Measures

4.2.1. Classroom observations

We conducted classroom observations of tablet use in the spring of 2016 in Dallas and in

the summer of 2016 in North Kamagambo, Kenya. In all classroom observations, we used a

research-based instrument that enables observers to record the extent to which an instructional

session (and integration of educational technology) facilitates quality learning opportunities for

students (Burch, Heinrich, & Good, 2016). The adapted version of the observation instrument

that we used incorporates nine dimensions that capture aspects of: the physical environment in


10

which the devices are being used and the accessibility of the technology; the curricular content

and structure and instructional models in use; the types of interactions occurring between

teachers, students, and the technology (when in use) and their level of engagement; and any

assessment occurring. The ratings of digital and blended instruction are recorded on a 0-4 (5-

point) scale; see additional information on each dimension in Appendix B. In classroom

observations, researchers also recorded time lost to technology problems and the number of

students per device; demographic information on students and instructors when possible; time

allocated to various instructional strategies, as well as detailed narrative vignettes of instruction,

activities and interactions in the classroom.

To support consistency and validity in data collection, the research team participated in

training sessions and established interrater reliability for all team members on sample

observations prior to observing in the field. Observers used the same instrument across settings,

with minor adaptations to capture differences in primary language use2 and other teaching aids or

tools present in the classroom. In total, we conducted 99 observations in schools in Dallas and 36

observations in Kenyan schools.

4.2.2. Teacher interviews and surveys

The research team also administered teacher surveys in Dallas and conducted semi-

structured interviews with teachers in Kenya to provide context and insight into teachers’

experiences. The interview data were collected using a semi-structured interview protocol with

interview topics, probes, and both closed- and open-ended questions. The teacher survey was

2 Of the classrooms observed in Dallas, 48 percent were officially classified by the district as Spanish-English

bilingual classrooms, and we observed bilingual instruction in an additional 15 percent of the classrooms identified

by the district as non-official bilingual classrooms. In Dallas, multiple research team members were fluent in the

Spanish language and present during bilingual instruction. During Kiswahili lessons (one of the official languages of

Kenya), both teachers and students spoke primarily in Kiswahili and occasionally in English to explain complex

topics. In all other subjects, teachers and students spoke English during class time. Members of the research team

that spoke Kiswahili were present in the observations where Kiswahili was spoken.


11

designed to capture the same information in a self-administered survey form. The interview and

survey topics included instructor background, instructional practices, support for tablet use,

tablet access and use by student subgroups, assessment of the effectiveness of tablets in the

classroom, and plans for their ongoing use. (Refer to Appendix C for the full protocol). In total,

we interviewed eight classroom teachers in Kenya and administered surveys to 81 teachers in

Dallas classrooms. Both the Jiv Daya Foundation in Dallas and the LCA education team in

Kenya provided support for data collection in their respective settings, such as assisting in

contacting teachers and arranging observation schedules.

4.3 Methods of Analysis

Guided by our theoretical framework and logic model (see Figure 1), we analyzed

information from observations, interviews, surveys, and administrative data across our two low-

resource settings qualitatively and qualitatively. Triangulation across these sources of

information, classrooms, and settings was used to confirm the validity and reliability of

analytical findings. In analyzing the qualitative data, the teacher interviews were recorded and

transcribed to identify common themes, and they were subsequently analyzed in conjunction

with the observation and survey data on tablet use in the classroom, using thematic coding for

the open-ended responses. Spot-checking was used to check coding consistency. In addition, in

confirming findings, we searched for exceptions and alternative explanations to challenge

preconceptions and personal biases.

Descriptive statistical analyses of the observation data were undertaken only with the

numerical ratings of classroom dimensions observed. Given the ordinal nature of the scales

measuring each dimension in the instrument, we used ANOVAs with chi-squared tests to explore

differences between the study settings on the dimensions of interest, although we do not report


12

the results of the statistical tests, given that we are not able to confirm that our observations are

statistically representative of what takes place in classroom tablet use throughout the school year

in our study sites. For similar reasons, we do not report (statistically) the prevalence of analytic

themes that emerged through qualitative coding of narrative vignettes from the observations.

In quantitative analyses of the relationship of tablet use to student academic outcomes

(test scores), we estimated regression models that controlled for the observable pre-treatment

differences in academic performance and student characteristics, along with controls for other

potential moderators of tablet use (as shown in Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2). Educational

research indicates that one of the most important control variables in estimating the effects of

interventions on student achievement is a measure of students’ pre-test academic performance

(using the same test instrument as used in measuring outcomes), which we have available for

both study sites (Cook and Steiner, 2010). We also estimate robust, clustered standard errors that

take into account student clustering within classrooms (Dallas) and schools (Kenya). Because of

observed baseline differences in student profiles, however, we do not make any causal assertions

about the relationship between tablet use and changes in student achievement in this study.

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS

As we discuss below (and as reflected in our logic model in Figure 1), a combination of

infrastructure, training and capacity, and cultural factors contributed to the variation observed in

instructional strategies and practices for integrating tablets across and within these two distinct

contexts (Dallas and Kenya).

5.1 Facilitating Conditions (Inputs)

5.1.1. Access and infrastructure


13

In both Dallas and rural Kenya, a number of factors constrained teacher and student

access to the educational technology. Some limiting conditions pertained to infrastructure in the

educational settings and others related to the hardware or devices. Not surprisingly, observers

rated the accessibility and operability of the tablets more highly in Dallas (92 percent highly

rated) than in Kenya (43 percent). Students in rural Kenya more frequently had to share tablets,

although problems keeping the tablets charged and accessing content were encountered in both

settings, which contributed to student sharing of the devices and to lost instructional time.

Teachers in Kenya also did not have access to alternative types of technology to supplement

tablets or projectors to guide student use of the tablets from the front of the classroom, as many

teachers in Dallas did. Figure 2 summarizes both the distinctive and common factors (or

facilitating conditions) within and across the settings that influenced tablet access and use. We

discuss these in greater detail below, along with their implications for educational equity.

[Figure 2 near here]

One of the most pressing concerns raised by teachers in rural Kenya was limited access to

electricity and related challenges keeping tablets charged. Some, but not all schools, reported

access to a generator. Teachers from other schools traveled long distances to charge the tablets at

one of the other schools or charged the tablets at their personal residences. Greater investment in

electricity infrastructure and the equitable distribution of tablets across all schools could have

reduced the between-school disparities in tablet access observed in these settings. Although

electricity infrastructure was a problem largely in the Kenyan context, tablet implementation

faltered at schools in both settings due to inadequate infrastructure investments at the time the

tablets were introduced. In Kenya, schools with a generator reported fewer issues keeping the

tablets charged, and in Dallas, schools with centralized practices and supports for tablet charging


14

tended to have greater compliance and fewer issues associated with devices unprepared for use.

A requisite of ensuring equitable access to the learning content on tablets includes providing

tailored levels of support that recognize not all schools, classrooms, and teachers start with the

same baseline infrastructure and access to resources for supporting tablet integration.

In addition to charging issues constraining the number of tablets available on a given day

in Kenya, the Worldreader grant provided insufficient tablets for the intended one-to-one

student-to-device ratio. We only observed a one-to-one ratio in 32 percent of the classroom

sessions in Kenya, limiting the ability of students to take full advantage of features that

facilitated personalized learning, such as adjusting the font size to improve readability, working

at one’s own pace, and taking the tablet home. In Dallas, alternatively, students had individual

(one-to-one) tablet access in 94 percent of observed classroom sessions. The Jiv Daya

Foundation attempted, where possible, to provide additional tablets to classrooms (above the

expected class sizes), anticipating that problems with charging or equipment failure might occur.

At other times, teachers in Dallas replaced inoperable devices with tablets borrowed from other

classrooms, or students used other technology in the classroom, such as desktop computers or

Chromebooks. Access to alternative devices allowed students continued access to instructional

content (in contrast to the more limited infrastructure in Kenya). At the same time, in some

instances, we observed that device sharing could facilitate peer-to-peer learning and

collaboration, indicating a one-to-one ratio was not a necessary condition for learning with the

tablets. However, to more effectively adapt to circumstances where one-to-one ratios were not

possible, it would have been advantageous to offer more professional training to teachers on how

to leverage tablets for multiple learners working on a single device.


15

Even though the tablets in rural Kenya were often not used in their intended one-to-one

ratio, seven of the eight interviewed teachers at tablet schools emphasized that the devices

increased student access to textbooks. Prior to tablet adoption, as many as eight students shared a

textbook. In other instances, only the teacher had access to course material, which he or she used

to copy all exercises onto the whiteboard for students to copy into their exercise books. One

teacher stated, “In a class environment with no books, the tablets help each and every pupil to

work at their own pace because they each have their own tablet—they can use them anytime.

They don’t have to share with anybody.” Despite lower levels of access in Kenya compared to

Dallas, the relative advantage provided through tablet use made the devices a valuable resource

for student learning. In fact, Haßler, Major, and Hennessy (2016) suggest that with the high

relative advantage tablets provide in many low-resource settings, targeting a one-to-one student

to device ratio may not be the best use of limited resources. Instead, the same funds may be

better used to enhance professional development for teachers on device use and integration

(Haßler et al., 2016).

In Dallas, student challenges with the login process was the most frequent accessibility

issue observed, followed by problems keeping the tablets charged and low readability due to

device size and brightness. These challenges were less disruptive to the learning environment

than lack of power in Kenya, with students enrolled in Dallas accessing the tablets with minimal

difficulties in 85 percent of observed sessions. Sixty percent of observed students were taught in

classrooms with no time lost due to technical issues, and students lost more than 25 percent of

instructional time due to technical issues in only 12 percent of observed sessions. Teachers in

Dallas also sometimes had to improvise lessons when the school Internet bandwidth was


16

insufficient in relation to the number of students attempting to access it, resulting in disrupted

lesson plans and potentially less educational or engaging activities.

In both settings, a teachers’ technological and classroom management expertise played a

vital role in students’ ability to access instructional content electronically, with less teacher

capacity associated with less effective classroom management and lost instructional time. While

technology assistance from students, neighboring classroom teachers, and technical support

personnel reduced time spent on technical difficulties, these strategies required either waiting for

external assistance or sufficient training to provide adequate knowledge for troubleshooting. In

the following section, we discuss the role of teacher capacity and professional development

(another input shown in Figure 1) in supporting educational technology integration efforts.

5.1.2. Teacher training, capacity, and support

In both study settings, our classroom observations suggested that the burden of technical

problems often fell on the adult (or student) closest to the device itself, and that such

challenges—from simple log-in issues to serious hardware failures—typically impeded or

slowed down instruction and deterred device use among teachers. At the same time, teachers’

perceived (and realized) ease of use of the tablets was influenced in part by their prior experience

with educational technology. Therefore, access to additional training or support held the potential

to increase teachers’ ability to more effectively use educational technology to support student

learning.

Training content. In Kenya, before the start of the 2016 school year, teachers from the

treatment schools received a one-day tablet training led by education staff. In interviews,

teachers described themselves as starting the year and the tablet program with little or no

experience with digital tools and acquiring extensive experience through the LCA-provided


17

training at program initiation. In addition, two teachers reported earning an IT certificate through

a part-time night program while they were teaching. Still, many teachers discussed difficulties

they had staying up-to-date on their skills and finding ways to practice while working in rural

Kenya.

The teachers in Kenya indicated that the training provided by the LCA was helpful in

instructing them on how to operate the tablets, including charging the devices, quickly accessing

books, pages, and locations, safe storage and troubleshooting, and how to teach students to use

them effectively in the classroom. However, while the teachers valued this training, they also

indicated a desire for continued training and revealed varying degrees of support for efforts to

improve tablet use from school leadership (principals) and other staff. This finding is consistent

with reports on ICT integration in rural areas which find that “often in developing nations, the

educational organizations and school management fail to perceive the importance and

seriousness of the role of ICT in education enhancement,” and planning and support, such as

post-integration training and mentoring, are consequently inadequate (Budhedeo, 2016, p. 4763).

In Dallas, 13 percent of teachers targeted for tablet use in the 2015-16 school year

reported no prior technology experience, while 30 percent reported minimal technology

experience and 57 reported some or more prior experience. Before distributing the tablets to

classrooms and during the school year, the Jiv Daya Foundation provided teachers with

comprehensive, voluntary training and resources on device usage, digital applications, and

instructional best practices. Research indicates that the inclusion of integration strategies linked

to instructional best practices are particularly influential in improving teacher perceptions of

device usefulness, subsequent technology use, and the effectiveness of that use (Boschman,

McKenney, Pieters, & Voogt, 2016; Harris & Hofer, 2011; Janssen & Lazonder, 2016). By the


18

end of the school year, 96 percent of DISD teachers reported some or more technology

experience, although regardless of their reported experience level, like teachers in Kenya, they

expressed a desire for additional training and support targeted to their skill level and instructional

content.

Limitations of training and teacher capacity. Despite general satisfaction with the

training provided, teachers reported experiencing technical difficulties and delays that prevented

students from using the tablets effectively. Additionally, reflecting in part the distinctive cultural

contexts, teachers in Kenya often framed technical issues as indicative of a lack of student

(versus adult) capacity. Due to higher student-teacher ratios in Kenya versus the U.S., most

teachers relied on student technology expertise to resolve these issues, resulting in differential

access to reading material. Teachers reported that “slow-learners” experienced more difficulties

using the eReaders; one teacher specifically stated, “We don’t have enough time in a lesson to

help every pupil access (the eReader), so slow learners cannot use eReaders during lessons. If

you go one by one to teach them how to open a page, the lesson will be over.”

While some teachers made the effort to support every student in using the eReaders, this

was not the case in all classrooms. Some teachers paired students struggling with the eReaders

with students perceived as higher performing. This type of pairing provided learning

opportunities for both the student providing and the student receiving support. In addition, a few

teachers mentioned that tutorials or reading clubs were designed to support students who

struggled both in reading and with the eReader manipulation, although observations at the

schools revealed that only one school held reading club meetings regularly. Greater support and

follow-through for these and similar programs might have allowed greater tablet access for

students with lower reading levels and technical competencies.


19

In one typical observation in Dallas, a researcher noted: “Most students in the classroom

appear to easily access … [instructional material]. Two to three students have minor connection

or technology issues that the teacher quickly resolved.” In other observations, teachers requested

the assistance of technical support personnel to troubleshoot challenges, and as in Kenya, we also

observed students assisting fellow classmates. With greater technical capacity required of

teachers in Dallas than in Kenya—commensurate with increased access to a wider array of tools,

programs, and resources—teachers sometimes experienced technical issues that they were unable

to resolve on their own. Although the Jiv Daya Foundation provided phone support, the

resolution of more challenging technical issues required placing a request with the central district

technical support team. Even an emergency request involved waiting for technology support

personnel to drive to the school, thus, as in Kenya, we observed disparate access to quality

educational experiences for students based on the technical expertise of their teacher.

Furthermore, reliance on teachers to solve technical issues as they emerged also limited the

teachers’ ability to provide instructional assistance. In the rare instances where teachers

identified student technology helpers or paired students to work together, a strategy common in

Dallas and Kenya, we observed greater student engagement in learning tasks, a sense of pride

and ownership among students using the tablets, and more student-teacher interactions around

course content versus technical issues.

Developing teacher capacity in both Kenya and Dallas lessened the cognitive load of

deploying more challenging, complex electronic resources and expanded access to programs

with features most likely to facilitate personalized, active, and student-centered learning

(Callaghan, Long, van Es, Reich & Rutherford, 2017). It was only through developing the

capacity of teachers and students that both ease of use and usability could increase in tandem.


20

Therefore, while the following section examines technology enactment and integration, the

teacher capacity, training, and support provided a ceiling on the extent to which teachers and

their students benefited from the technology-based activities and features discussed below.

5.2 Technology Enactment and Integration (Activities and Outputs)

Instructors’ enactment of tablets in the classroom varied based on available infrastructure

(discussed above), software and website features, as well as alignment with and enhancement of

currently employed curricula and instructional models. Curricula and instructional approaches, in

turn, varied by cultural norms and classroom realities that likewise affected the student and

classroom experience when integrating technology.

In Kenya, teachers integrated the tablets in math, reading, social studies, science,

Kiswahili, and religion classes. Kiswahili, one of the official languages of Kenya, was the

primary focus of instruction in 22 percent of observations, whereas English language instruction

was observed in 19 percent of observations, social studies in 19 percent, and math in 15 percent

of observations. In Dallas, teachers focused primarily on math instruction in 41 percent of our

observations, reading in 25 percent of observations, and science in 15 percent of observations. It

is noteworthy that tablets were used more frequently with math instruction in Dallas and with

language instruction in Kenya, with similar rates of use in other subjects.

In schools integrating tablets in Kenya, most lessons using the devices consisted of

teachers copying notes onto the board, teachers lecturing about the notes, and students copying

the notes or practice questions into their exercise books. We rarely observed teachers engaging

with students (or interacting with the tablets) in a manner that invited student dialogue.

Reflecting cultural norms, teachers seldom asked students to demonstrate their understanding of


21

the skills being taught until the very end of the lesson (on their homework, checked by teachers

after class).

Alternatively, teachers in Dallas employed some form of technology-integrated

instruction approximately half of the time in our observed sessions, with teachers using fully

digital (versus blended learning) instructional strategies slightly more often (53 vs. 42 percent of

the time, respectively), while integrating the tablets. It was common to observe fluid instructional

models with classroom sessions incorporating more than one format, such as individual,

technology-driven instruction that transitioned to a teacher-led review and discussion. In another

such example, a teacher introduced content in a lecture format before assigning students to

individually apply the new concepts to exercises on a tablet-based application.

An analysis of classroom observation data for Dallas and rural Kenya showed that

interactions between instructors, students and the tablets were rated almost twice as highly in

Dallas than Kenya (60 vs. 34 percent rated highly, respectively). In addition to cultural

differences, this discrepancy was expected in part due to the limited functionality with tablets in

Kenya, as they were not connected to the Internet and presented fewer opportunities for

individualized learning due to more frequent device sharing. While the internet-enabled tablets in

Dallas offered more functionality than in Kenya, the relative advantage of this tablet feature was

limited predominately to options that enabled personalization of instruction. Many of the

technology-driven applications and websites used by teachers in Dallas provided built-in

modifications and accommodations based on student ability, such as the adjustment of reading

material to students’ ability level or an interface for teachers to monitor student interactions with

the device, track their progress, and provide interventions as needed. At a minimum, programs

allowed self-directed pacing. Teachers noted that these aspects of the devices were particularly


22

helpful in providing accommodations for students with special needs, which in turn could reduce

inequities in access to learning opportunities. In the absence of these options in Kenya, teachers

were more likely to exclude special needs students (or “slow learners” as they described them),

rather than leveraging technology to increase their engagement and progress in learning. These

differences in access to tablet-based instructional materials and features carried over directly into

student engagement levels in the classroom and their digital citizenship.3

5.3 Technology Outputs and Outcomes

5.3.1. Student engagement and digital citizenship

Although student engagement was about twice as high in Dallas (88 percent rated highly)

as in Kenya, we observed higher levels of digital citizenship among Kenyan students than in

Dallas classrooms (83 vs. 77 percent rated highly, respectively), suggesting that the students

were more likely to use the tablets as intended in Kenya, likely in part owing to the lack of

distractions from the Internet and other applications. Comments from teachers in Kenya also

suggested that the observed behavior reflected students’ respect and appreciation for the

opportunity to use tablets, even in the absence of Internet access, and classroom cultural norms

in regard to teacher authority.

While student engagement was lower-rated in rural Kenya compared to Dallas, teachers

there suggested in interviews that the tablets had, in fact, improved student engagement.

Teachers’ evidence for this included decreased student absenteeism and drop-out rates, as well as

an observed shift in students’ attitudes toward learning. With respect to students’ physical

attendance, one teacher stated that since they received tablets, students were rarely absent.

3 Student engagement encompassed students’ level of activity (vs. passivity), persistence and self-regulation, as well

as the level of community within the instructional setting, while digital citizenship concerned the extent to which

students used the technology as intended by the instructor or instructional program.


23

Another provided specific numbers, saying that, “In the past, we had two to three (drop-outs) per

term, but this time, they have not (dropped out).” Yet another teacher mentioned that at least

three students transferred to the tablet schools from other schools.

Teachers attributed these changes to a shift in students’ mindset associated with the

opportunity to use tablets. As one teacher explained, “Now pupils like school. Being in school

leads to getting something out of that school.” Teachers described students as working more

without being told, even without the teacher present in the room, as well as students coming in as

early as 6:30 in the morning to read storybooks on the tablets. Furthermore, they suggested that

tablets increased motivation among students in other classes, who attempted to compete with the

students with tablet access. One teacher also mentioned that the tablets improved teacher-student

relationships by increasing opportunities to communicate with one another. This was evident in

classrooms where more individual students could be called on to read or engage in questions in

class, since they had access to the text via the tablets.

Although generally stronger, student engagement in Dallas also varied to some extent

from class to class, corroborating the importance of teacher capacity, instructional models, and

technology functioning as likely mediators of student engagement. Distractions in the physical

classroom environment and technical issues were some of the most frequently observed

contributors to instances of low student engagement in classrooms. For example, in observations

where many students had problems logging into devices and accessing content, delays in starting

the instructional sessions could be considerable, which created distractions for students who

were otherwise trying to work. At other times, the assigned activity was itself distracting. For

example, some digital programs had loud, accompanying noises and others had visuals that

distracted from the primary instructional content. In general, small group and individual formats


24

also required a level of classroom management or self-regulation by students that was sometimes

lacking, resulting in disengagement during some observations.

For the most part, however, the digital content made available through the tablets in

Dallas appeared to increase student engagement rather than detracting from it. For example, in

one observation, students completing an assignment on the tablets exhibited more self-regulation

and persistence than students in the same classroom completing an assignment without

technology. Built-in accommodations and options for customization in some digital programs

seemed to also contribute to higher rates of student engagement. This finding is consistent with

prior research by Furió, Juan, Seguí, and Vivó (2015), which shows that students prefer

electronic activities to traditional teacher-led instruction, due in part to multi-sensory

engagement and the use of varied teaching methods.

5.3.2. Student outcomes

Students in Kenya who participated in end-of-the-school year focus groups gave positive

feedback on the implementation of tablets in their classrooms and unanimously expressed a

preference for tablets over standard textbooks. They highlighted aspects of the tablets such as

their ability to efficiently find definitions of unknown words, access to interesting and varied

books, and the fact that they don’t have missing pages as many textbooks do. Some students also

self-reported improved grades that they attributed to the tablets, while others cited higher

rankings on national exams.

Table 1 summarizes the findings of regression analyses that show associations between

tablet use in the classroom and academic outcomes in Kenya. The results show consistently

positive associations between student tablet use and changes in their academic performance from

baseline to endline on oral reading fluency and reading comprehension measures (in Kiswahili


25

and English), compared to students in classrooms without tablets, although only about one-third

of the differences are statistically significant (those for correct words per minute). The

improvements in oral reading fluency were larger for English reading skills; students with access

to tablets read 19 more words correct per minute in Kiswahili and 25 more words correct per

minute in English compared to students in the classrooms without tablets.

The same regression models estimated for students in Dallas (with standard errors

clustered at the classroom level) showed no relationship, on average, between student tablet use

and changes in student test scores (pre- and post-tablet distribution). However, when we

estimated an alternative, “dose-response” model that assessed the relationship between the

intensity of classroom tablet use (on average, approximately 60 minutes per week) and student

test scores, we found average treatment effect sizes of 0.051 standard deviations in reading and

0.307 standard deviations in math (see Table 2).4 These correspond with an 12 percent

reduction in the reading achievement gap by free-reduced lunch status and a 61 percent

reduction in the math achievement gap based on fourth-grade NAEP scores (U.S. Department of

Education, 2015). Thus, the preliminary findings in both Dallas and Kenya suggest that with

adequate training, technical support and other infrastructure to integrate educational technology

into elementary classrooms, there may be potential for tablets to increase student academic

performance and reduce achievement gaps.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED THAT APPLY CROSS-NATIONALLY

The findings from this cross-national, comparative study of educational technology

integration in low-resource settings showed that technology use is associated with increased

4 Sample sizes differ for the overall average treatment effect and estimated treatment response to the average student

intensity of use, because the overall treatment effects compare classrooms with and without tablet use, while the

“dose-response” estimates are based on a student-level model of intensity (minutes of use) in classrooms.


26

student engagement (Furió, et al., 2015) and potentially improved student academic outcomes.

This suggests that technology integration may be a viable strategy for increasing student learning

in such settings, and with adequate resources and pedagogical enhancements, it could aid in

reducing achievement gaps. At the same time, challenges in implementation across settings that

are exacerbated in low-resource contexts suggest that the success of technology integration in

transforming student learning is contingent on responsiveness to local capacity needs (e.g.,

infrastructure and training) and cultural factors that shape teacher-student interactions around the

devices (tablets) (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Rogers, 2003; Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer,

2004). Our research provides guidance for parties seeking to introduce and increase the quality

and intensity of technology use in the classroom across a spectrum of available resources and

contextual factors (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Pelgrum, 2001; Rogers, 2003; Stanhope & Corn,

2014).

More specifically, we find that developing and implementing a successful educational

technology initiative requires, first and foremost, an ongoing administrative commitment to

supporting and leveraging sufficient resources—a base level of infrastructure (e.g., a consistent

power source) and access to technical expertise—which in low resource contexts, may require

external support, such as that provided by the LCA and the Jiv Daya Foundation in this study .

As we saw in Dallas, access to the Internet exponentially increases access to educational

materials and options for personalized instruction and assessment of student learning. (Stols et

al., 2015). Where reliable Internet access is not available, such as in rural Kenya, access to pre-

loaded educational resources may be a feasible alternative for expanding learning opportunities

(Wang, 2016). Additionally, the availability of additional devices to support a one-to-one student

to device ratio could promote greater intensity of use, as well as opportunities for personalized


27

and out-of-school learning. However, in settings such as rural Kenya where the relative

advantage of devices is high, even when shared, the benefits of reducing the student to device

ratio must be weighed against potential advantages of other investments, such as expanding

professional development on device integration (Haßler et al., 2016).

For teachers with more consistent Internet access, as in Dallas, expanding knowledge of

effective technology applications and websites and how to leverage those capabilities may

support more intensive use. For instance, teachers can enhance student engagement in learning

activities by selecting resources that communicate clear expectations for performance, are easier

to manipulate, and foster a sense of resolve and personal competition, such as through the

assignment of points (Furió et al., 2015). In addition to motivating and instructing students,

programs that offer immediate feedback enhance teachers’ ability to monitor student progress,

make accommodations, and target interventions (Furió et al., 2015).

In both settings, teacher experience and comfort levels played a vital role in device usage.

Teachers across settings appreciated training on device use and instructional integration made

available at the beginning of the school year. However, many teachers in both settings desired

more access to ongoing training and administrative support, which research confirms can result

in greater intensity and effectiveness of device use when provided (Budhedeo, 2016; Gyamfi,

2016; Miranda & Russell, 2011; Mndzebel, 2013). In both Dallas, Texas and rural Kenya, one of

the most timely, sustainable, and scalable solutions for facilitating greater access to educational

technology for student learning may be providing increased support to teachers in developing

their own and student capabilities. We also observed that recognizing and drawing on students’

technical skills can have the added benefit of encouraging teamwork and fostering student

enthusiasm for technology use (Ciampa, 2014).


28

Indeed, across both settings, our observations highlighted opportunities for peer-to-peer

learning and exchange (both among teachers and students) to improve technical expertise and

reduce technical issues. In some schools, teachers worked together to solve technical challenges

and relied on tech-savvy teachers in their building for support, a model for collaboration that is

supported by research conducted in Danish schools (Venezky, 2004). Building these types of

shared capacities among teachers may increase the timeliness of support for ICT integration,

which is critical to ensuring both quantity and quality of instructional time, with implications, in

turn, for classroom management, student engagement, and teacher availability to support

learning, as well as student academic outcomes. Therefore, in-school (and classroom) expertise

is essential, with teacher peer assistance, mentoring, and learning a potentially valuable strategy

in combination with ongoing professional development and a larger technical support plan.

Furthermore, peer learning and collaboration has the additional benefit of transmitting content-

specific integration strategies and improving pedagogical practice with device use, particularly

when teachers have access to content and technical experts in ongoing professional development

(Boschman et al., 2016). The advantages of peer learning should be balanced, however, with

potential equity concerns, so that the teaching and learning of more technically proficient

teachers and students is supported as well and not deprioritized in the process.

Despite less developed structural and physical infrastructure, the relative advantages of

tablet use in Kenya appeared to be comparable (if not greater) than tablet use in Dallas. Teachers

and students in Kenya perceived considerable benefits to learning with the devices, even when

shared, which contributed to higher digital citizenship ratings in Kenya. In both contexts,

teachers in both Dallas and Kenya discovered ways to enhance prior instructional techniques to

achieve learning goals with the introduction of tablets. In fact, one of the greatest strengths of the


29

tablets was their adaptability to various instructional styles within and across settings, a key

predictor of technology use (Okumuş, Lewis, Wiebe, & Hollebrands, 2016; Stols et al. 2015). In

Kenya, tablet use took a different form than tablet use in Dallas, but both expanded student

access to educational material and, in many cases, allowed teachers to incorporate strategies for

differentiating and facilitating student learning.

Equity in access to educational technology and its effective use was a persistent concern

in both settings, but our research suggests that schools and teachers have levers at hand for better

engaging and supporting those in need. Indeed, an important benefit of increased access to

educational technology in low-resource settings is the opportunity it affords teachers to allocate

more time to working directly with students, while also reaching predominately historically

lower-achieving student populations such as non-native language speakers and students receiving

special education services with new instructional strategies (Ferrer, Belvis, & Pàmies, 2011). Our

work also shows that concerted effort is needed to ensure that this most valuable educational

resource, the instructor’s attention, is not inequitably distributed in ways that allow the

emergence of within-classroom tracks with differential access to quality learning experiences,

such as some Kenyan teachers’ disregard of “slow learners” in the classroom. In our study, some

observed strategies for addressing technical challenges, such as tablet sharing and assigning

peers to mentor other students on technology use, could also increase or decrease students’

ability to benefit from technology access, depending on implementation.

Lastly, context clearly matters—those engaged in implementing technology initiatives

should be cognizant of cultural and organizational norms and attentive to the range of teaching

practices employed, with consideration for the equity concerns they may present. Our findings

on associations between tablet use, student engagement and test scores, along with prior research


30

demonstrating associated achievement gains, strengthen the emerging evidence base that

suggests with sufficient support and resource allocations, educational technology can be

instrumental in enhancing learning opportunities, and in turn, lessen education and digital divides

for students in low-resource settings across the globe.


31

References

Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why

multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 37(1): 45-63.

Boschman, F., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & Voogt, J. (2016). Exploring the role of content

knowledge in teacher design conversations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2),

157-169. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12124

Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers' adoption and integration of information

and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International

Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication

Technology, 8(1), 136.

Budhedeo, S. H. (2016). Issues and challenges in bringing ICT enabled education to rural India.”

International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, 4(1), 4759-4766. DOI:

10.18535/ijsre/v4i01.01

Burch, P., Good, A., & Heinrich, C. J. (2016). Improving access to, quality, and the effectiveness

of digital instruction in K-12 education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1),

65-87. DOI: 10.3102/0162373715592706

Callaghan MN, Long JJ, van Es EA, Reich SM, Rutherford T. (2017). How teachers integrate a

math computer game: Professional development use, teaching practices, and student

achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12209

Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12036

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12209


32

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high

school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research

Journal, 38(4), 813-834. DOI: 10.3102/00028312038004813

Ferrer, F., Belvís, E., & Pàmies, J. (2011). Tablet PCs, academic results and educational

inequalities. Computers & Education, 56(1), 280–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.018

Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom

lessons: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 189–201. DOI:

10.1111/jcal.12071

Goff, N., Maylahn, P., Oates, B., Oates, R. and Wujcik, A. (2015). State of the K-12 market

2015 findings. Market Data Retrieval.

Gyamfi, S. A. (2016). Identifying Ghanaian pre-service teachers' readiness for computer use: A

Technology Acceptance Model approach. International Journal of Education and

Development using Information and Communication Technology, 12(2), 105.

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the

evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139-156.

DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12123

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in

action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related

instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.

Herodotou, C. (2018). Young children and tablets: A systematic review of effects on

learning and development Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34:1-9.


33

Janssen, N., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Supporting pre‐service teachers in designing

technology‐infused lesson plans. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(5), 456-467.

DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12146

Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2011). Predictors of teacher-directed student use of technology in

elementary classrooms: A multilevel SEM approach using data from the USEIT

study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 301-323.

Nasir, N.S. & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring Sociocultural Perspectives on Race, Culture, and

Learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4): 449-475.

NSDC (National Staff Development Council). (1995). Standards for Staff Development.

Okumuş, S, Lewis, L., Wiebe, E., & Hollebrands, K. (2016). Utility and usability as factors

influencing teacher decisions about software integration. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 64(6), 1227-1249. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9455-4

Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a

worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163-178.

Richardson, J. W. (2011). Challenges of adopting the use of technology in less developed

countries: The case of Cambodia. Comparative Education Review, 55(1), 8-29. DOI: 0010-

4086/2011/5501-0002

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Stanhope, D. S., & Corn, J. O. (2014). Acquiring teacher commitment to 1: 1 initiatives: The role

of the technology facilitator. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 252-

276.


34

Stols, G., Ferreira, R., Pelser, A., Olivier, W. A., Van der Merwe, A., De Villiers, C., & Venter,

S. (2015). Perceptions and needs of South African mathematics teachers concerning their use

of technology for instruction. South African Journal of Education, 35(4), 01-13.

Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., & Bernard, R. M. (2015). Large-scale, government-

supported educational tablet initiatives. Commonwealth of Learning.

Twining, P., Raffaghelli, J., Albion, P., & Knezek, D. (2013). Moving education into the digital

age: The contribution of teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 29(5), 426–437. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12031

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences.

Venezky, R. L. (2004). Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education,

Communication & Information, 4(1), 3-21. DOI: 10.1080/1463631042000211024

Wang, Y. H. (2016). Could a mobile‐assisted learning system support flipped classrooms for

classical Chinese learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(5), 391-415. DOI:

10.1111/jcal.12141

Wong, E. M. L., Li, S. S. C., Choi, T., & Lee, T. (2008). Insights into innovative classroom

practices with ICT: Identifying the impetus for change. Journal of Educational Technology

& Society, 11(1), 248-265.


35

Figure 1: Logic Model for Equity and Effectiveness in Educational Technology Integration

Theoretical

foundations

Inputs Activities Outputs and

Outcomes

Longer-term

Educational

Goals

Socio-

technical

theory

Socio-

cultural

theory

Structural

properties of tablets

Installed software,

educational

materials

Internet or intranet

access

Users of tablets

Students (and

technology

experience)

Teachers (and

baseline technology

expertise)

Classroom

Physical setting,

infrastructure

Cultural norms

Resources

Financial resources

Instructional and

technology support

Training and

professional

development

Technology

enactment and

integration in

instruction

Planning and

management of

tablet initiatives

Classroom

configurations

Type and intensity

of tablet use

Curriculum

frameworks and

instructional

approaches

Personalized or

blended learning

strategies

Transacted cultural

norms and

conventions (among

students and

teachers)

Instructional support

Outputs

Student

engagement

Student digital

citizenship

Student

technological

skill

development

Teacher

technical

capacity

Outcomes

Test scores

Achievement

growth

Increases in

student learning,

academic

achievement

Reduced

achievement

gaps by race,

socioeconomic

status and

student special

needs

Narrowed digital

divided (closure

of gaps in access

to technology for

learning)


36

Figure 2. Facilitating Conditions Within and Across Settings


37

Table 1: Estimated Changes in Student Academic Performance Associated with Tablet Use in

North Kamagambo, Kenya

Predicting changes in test scores (baseline to

endline assessments) Estimated associations

Dependent variable: N Coefficient

Robust std.

error

Δ in Kiswahili correct words per minute 218 19.027 6.256

Δ in English correct words per minute 197 25.275 6.236

Δ in Kiswahili comprehension 218 0.726 0.435

Δ in English comprehension 218 0.401 0.420

Notes: Coefficient estimates statistically significant at α=0.05 shown in boldface.

The assessments of student academic (reading) performance used in North Kamagambo, Kenya

consisted of three subtests on pronunciation, oral reading fluency, and comprehension, in both

Kiswahili and English. Subtest 1, pronunciation, consisted of 10 words ordered from low to high

difficulty levels; pronunciation of each word was scored on a 0-1 scale, where 1 point was

awarded for the correct pronunciation. Subtest 2 consisted of small reading passages to measure

oral reading fluency; total reading time and number of correctly read words were used to

calculate correct words per minute. Subtest 3, comprehension, consisted of 7 questions on each

passage, with 0-2 points awarded depending on correctness and the level of higher-order thinking

required.


38

Table 2: Estimated Changes in Student Academic Performance Associated with Tablet Use in

Dallas, Texas

Predicting changes in test scores (pre- to post-test,

academic year measures) Estimated associations

Dependent variable: N Coefficient

Robust std.

error

Δ in standardized math scores (classroom-level) 682 0.031 0.046

Δ in standardized reading scores (classroom-level) 683 0.004 0.051

Δ in standardized math scores at average level of

student intensity of use (60 minutes per week) 819 0.307 0.033

Δ in standardized reading scores at average level of

student intensity of use (60 minutes per week) 819 0.051 0.019

Notes: Coefficient estimates statistically significant at α=0.05 shown in boldface.

Students in Dallas, Texas took the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)

standardized math and reading tests in May of 2016 (post-test) and in the spring of 2015 (pre-

test).


39

Appendix A: Sample Characteristics, Treatment and Comparison Groups

Table A.1: North Kamagambo region, Kenya Study Sample, 2016 School Year (Pre-Treatment)

Student-level Characteristics

Students Attending

Other LCA Schools5

(%)

Students Attending

Treatment Schools

(%)

Parents are Primary Caregiver 0.64

(0.48)

0.71

(0.45)

Percent Male 0.54

(0.50)

0.50

(0.50)

Age 12.39

(0.10)

12.88

(0.15)

Number of Books Have Access to at School

---- Fewer than 5 Books 0.16

(0.37)

0.12

(0.32)

---- 5-10 Books 0.69

(0.46)

0.46

(0.50)

---- More than 10 Books 0.15

(0.36)

0.43

(0.50)

Fewer than 5 Books at Home 0.69

(0.47)

0.37

(0.48)

Child Reports Reading Only When Have To 0.29

(0.46)

0.51

(0.50)

Caregiver Rarely/Never Reads to Child 0.18

(0.39)

0.25

(0.44)

Caregiver Rarely/Never Checks Schoolwork 0.20

(0.40)

0.21

(0.41)

N 128 95

Standard errors in parentheses

5 All students in this comparison group attended schools that volunteered but were not selected to implement the

tablet initiative.


40

Table A.2: Dallas Independent School District Study Sample, 2015-16 School Year

School-level Characteristics

All DISD

Schools (%)

Title 1

(comparison)

Schools (%)

Tablet

(treatment)

Schools (%)

Percent Native American 0.28

(0.65)

0.27

(0.63)

0.41

(0.81)

Percent Asian 1.16

(4.14)

1.03

(4.11)

0.58

(1.03)

Percent Hispanic 67.63

(27.10)

69.54

(26.18)

88.00

(8.79)

Percent Black 25.22

(26.20)

25.44

(26.29)

7.76

(5.03)

Percent White 5.12

(11.14)

3.25

(5.66)

2.57

(4.19)

Percent Male 52.11

(8.02)

52.03

(7.39)

52.10

(3.31)

Percent Limited English Proficiency 47.91

(21.73)

49.89

(20.56)

63.50

(8.40)

Percent Receiving Special Education Services 8.55

(9.11)

8.44

(8.41)

8.72

(2.77)

Percent Low-Income 90.21

(14.87)

93.37

(6.19)

93.72

(6.51)

Prior Year Math Proficiency 48.54

(28.76)

47.94

(27.82)

51.81

(26.12)

Prior Year Reading Proficiency 46.23

(28.49)

45.77

(27.52)

51.73

(25.12)

N 438 412 21

Standard errors in parentheses


41

Appendix B: Dimensions of Digital and Blended Instruction Rated in Observations

The following dimensions of digital and blended instruction and the settings in which they are

used are rated by the observation instrument we employ in this study.

Physical environment: How and where students access the instructional setting, including

the technological setting and any associated limitations, and who else in the same physical

environment as the student could assist with technological problems and support learning;

Technology and digital tools: How students access instruction, including internet

connectivity, hardware and software in use, and the safety, operability and accessibility of the

technology;

Curricular content and structure: Content and skill focus, who developed it and where it is

located (e.g., software loaded onto a tablet, paper workbook), stated learning objectives,

sequence and structure, level of rigor or intellectual challenge, and ability to meet and adapt

curricular content to student needs;

Instructional model and tasks: Role of instructor and software in instruction (what drives

instruction); purpose or target of instruction; student/instructor ratio and grouping patterns,

multimodal instruction; order of thinking required and application of technology in

instructional tasks, and ability to meet/adapt instructional model and tasks to student needs;

Interaction: How much interaction with a live person, and does the technology affect the

ability of the instructor or student to positively interact with one another and the instructional

resources?

Digital citizenship: Are students using the technology as intended by the instructor and/or

instructional program?

Student engagement: Overall student engagement levels, level of student self-regulation and

persistence, and level of community within the instructional setting;

Instructor engagement: Overall instructor engagement levels (passive or active) and

instructor efforts to encourage engagement;

Assessment/feedback: Who develops and manages the assessment (instructor, provider via

software), structure, and whether it is individualized to student learning and relevant to stated

learning goals.


42

Appendix C: Instructional Staff Interview Protocol

Introduction:

Description of goals of study

Discussion of confidentiality of individuals and completion of consent form

Purpose of interview/discussion: looking for broad patterns and insights about the use of

digital education tools in public schools

Interviewer initials: __________

Date:

School:

Teacher last name:

Grade:

Subject:

Time:

1. Instructor background

a. Teaching experience and current instructional

role/position:

Notes

i. How many years have you been teaching

or working in education?

ii. Are you pursuing additional education? Yes/No

iii. What is your specific role or title at your

school?

iv. How long have you been in this position?

v. Are you an e-reader patron?

Yes/No

vi. Do you have training particularly relevant

to digital education, such as computer

technology, media studies, software

development, coding, etc.?

Yes/No

vii. In addition to teaching, are you involved

in (or responsible for) other educational

and/or extracurricular programs or

activities in the school district? How

Yes/No


43

much time do you spend in an average

week (outside of your classes) with

students?

2. Instructional core:

a. Instructional Practice: Notes

i. In a typical day with these

students, what is the goal of

the instructional session?

ii. How do you come up with

your daily lesson plans?

iii. What is the length of a

typical instructional period?

iv. How many times does this

group of students meet for

classroom instruction?

With respect to the e-readers:

v. What are your goals for

using these e-readers?

vi. When do you incorporate e-

readers into your lessons

(during which parts of your

lessons do you use them)?

vii. What are your strategies for

using these e-readers to

enhance student learning?

viii. On average, how much time

do you spend using the e-

reader in each lesson?


44

On average, how many days per week do you use the e-reader in class?

a) 1 day

b) 2 days

c) 3 days

d) 4-5 days

Please rate on a scale how much you agree with the statement below:

Overall, I believe the e-readers have helped me achieve my objectives as a teacher in my

lessons.

b. Source and use of digital

tools

i. How often do you have technology difficulties with the e-readers that prevent

students from using them?

a. Never

b. Rarely

c. Sometimes

d. Very often

c. Support for use of digital

tools:

i. Describe any training or

other professional

development specific to

these e-readers. What

aspects of the training were

most useful to you in

preparing for the use of the

e-readers?

ii. Thinking back to the start of this school year, which of these terms best describes

your past experience with using technology in instruction?

a) no experience,

b) minimal experience,

c) some experience,

d) extensive experience

e) expert at using digital educational tools (technology in the classroom)

iii. How would you describe your level of experience with technology in instruction

now?

a) No experience

b) Minimal experience


45

c) Some experience

d) Extensive experience

e) Expert at using digital educational tools (technology in the classroom)

iv. What additional support for

e-readers would you want or

need?

d. Digital tool access and use by student subgroups:

i. How are you adapting the

curriculum, instructional

plans, or use of the e-readers

in order to assist students

with special needs?

ii. What additional resources

are needed when using

digital tools with students

with special needs?

ELL:

Students with special needs:

iii. In what other ways do you

group your students or

organize your classroom

when using e-readers?

3. Assessment and future use

a. Assessing the effectiveness

of digital tools in the

classroom:

Notes

i. In what ways has the e-

reader been a valuable tool

in the classroom?

ii. Do the e-readers offer

learning opportunities that

face-to-face instruction

does not? What are some

examples of such

opportunities?

iii. In your opinion, how do the

e-readers impact student

learning? How does it


46

impact their school

engagement?

iv. Are the e-readers more or

less effective for certain

types of students?

v. What are the greatest

challenges you face in

using e-readers to increase

student learning?

vi. How have you attempted to

address these challenges,

and have you had any

success with your

approach?

4. Plans for ongoing use of digital tools:

i. Do you plan to continue

using e-readers in your

classroom after the

program? Why or why

not?

ii. How much input do you

have into the extent to

which e-readers are used in

your school?

iii. What changes would you

like to see in the e-reader

program?

iv. Any additional

comments/feedback?

equitable technology integration - vanderbilt university

Documents