student technology access in an urban stem high...

2012 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society

Session 1-1

1 University of Wisconsin-Stout July 16-17, 2012

Student Technology Access in an Urban STEM High School:

The Missing Variable

Brian L. Sersion

Cincinnati Public Schools

Douglas M. Stevens

University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Public Schools

ABSTRACT This case study focuses on school technology access for low-income students enrolled in Hughes

STEM High School, a large urban science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

secondary school. In order to meet the high expectations of the STEM curriculum, students need

access to information and communication technology (ICT) outside of school, especially at home. Our

objective is to develop a better understanding of the expectations that schools have for students

regarding the use of technology, the level of access students have outside of school, and whether

students feel they have adequate access to and training in the appropriate technologies to meet the

expectations of their teachers and school.

Teachers, staff, and school administrators need to be aware of the technology access limitations

of their students to complete work. Our findings describe the technology access gap (TAG), a missing

variable in educational technology research, and highlight results from an innovative student

technology survey and school administrator interview.

Keywords: STEM, Conference Proceedings, Assessment/Survey, Technology

INTRODUCTION The research school in this case study is Hughes STEM High School, a newly established 7-12

secondary school in a large, Midwestern urban public school district. The science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) school relies on technology to achieve a project-based and

outcome-driven curriculum. Effective use of technology as a learning tool suffers greatly when access

to information and communication technology (ICT) is inadequate. ICT refers to technologies that

provide access to information via telecommunications media, such as the internet, wireless networks,

computers and computing devices, such as “smart” phones (TechTerms.com, 2012). The potential

technology tools have for transforming education is evident in the findings of multiple studies. The

importance of educational technology is clear in the meta-analysis findings of Sivin-Kachala (1998),

who found that when computers were used for instruction, the attitudes of students toward learning

improved, along with their own self-concept. Positive effects in student achievement were shown in all

major subject areas for those being educated in technology rich environments. In their research on

technology-based education, Ringstaff and Kelley (2002) found using technology-based methods have

a positive impact on student achievement. Robyler and Knezek (2003) consider access to technology

for pedagogy essential for a quality education. The sociological significance of our study is evident in

Frederick and Shockley who conclude, “The utilization and reliance on computer technology in society

has a devastating impact on many African-American students, who have limited access and/or limited

experiences using computer technologies” (2008, p. 3). This opens the door to the question of equity in

education and the so-called digital divide. Students with inadequate access to technology could easily

be forced to the sidelines of the 21st century playing field.

One of the goals of STEM education is to promote science, technology engineering and

mathematics literacy, defined as “an individual’s ability to apply his or her understanding of how the

world works within and across four interrelated domains” (Corn et al, 2010). How is this possible if


Session 1-1


students don’t have adequate access to technology beyond the classroom? When a technology access

gap exists, students are at a disadvantage, particularly when there is a deficiency at home. Motivation

for learning suffers when students are frustrated by inadequate resources to complete their school work.

For this reason, it is important for educators to be aware of the technology access gap, which compares

student access to technology at school and away from school. With this knowledge, educators can

avoid unrealistic expectations and unnecessary frustration for students. But awareness is just the first

step. Once awareness of the gap is established, teachers can then work to understand what constitutes

realistic expectations and what support mechanisms are needed to aid students with lower levels of

access.

The impact differential access to technology resources has on student learning is described

through a mixed-methods approach. The qualitative assessment tools used in this study provide a

deeper understanding through a student survey and a semi-structured administrator interview.

Quantitative analysis and validation through other studies provide additional descriptive information in

support of the qualitative findings. Educators at the research school will be in a better position to know

the technology capacity of their students and classroom as a result of this case study.

BACKGROUND The research school was founded in 2009 as a teacher-led school after a team of teachers, in partnership

with a local university worked outside the classroom for over a year planning the new program in

conjunction with business community partners and the Ohio STEM Learning Network. STEM-focused

schools tend to share four characteristics: small size, project-based learning, integrated-curriculum, and

a focus on serving underrepresented groups (Hanover Research, 2011). Unlike other STEM secondary

schools in the state, this school has an open enrollment policy with no selective application process.

The district’s high schools, with a handful of historic exceptions, are “schools of choice” and as such,

operate on a first-come, first-served basis for enrollment. The student population is predominantly

African-American, and the vast majority of students receive free or reduced price lunch, which is the

standard used by the State of Ohio to identify economically disadvantaged students.

The school was designed using a scale-up model. Starting in the fall of 2009 during its first

year, the school served ninth grade students only. In the fall of 2010, the initial cohort of students

moved up to the newly formed tenth grade and another group of ninth grade students enrolled. Most

recently, in the fall of 2011, that initial cohort began their junior year, while grades seven and eight

were also added as the district restructured some of its elementary schools. The long-range plan for the

school is to complement the kindergarten through sixth grade primary structure of many of the district’s

elementary schools with a seventh through twelfth grade secondary structure.

Significant organizational structures within the school involve interdisciplinary teams at each of

the grade levels, strong teacher leadership, and a democratic framework with strong ties to the

surrounding community, businesses, and post-secondary institutions. The school’s curriculum makes

heavy use of project-based learning (PBL), and has a custom, articulated curriculum which weaves not

only content areas together in purposeful ways, but also integrates technology and 21st Century Skills

into the STEM curriculum.

Our project began with the design and implementation of a student technology survey. The

survey includes scales for 21st Century Skills, use of technology for learning, and home access.

Existing research regarding teacher adoption of technology (Knezek & Christensen, 2008) indicated

that home access to the internet was critical to the adoption and mastery of technologies. Technology

access requires the availability and reliability of computer resources, including the internet. Internet

access can be a limiting factor to a student’s capacity to participate in the 21st century learning

environment. Furthermore, internet access can be viewed as a form of social capital, separating the

“haves” from the “have nots” (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001). Our objective is to develop a better


Session 1-1


understanding of the expectations schools have for students regarding: the use of technology, the level

of access students have outside of school, and whether or not students feel they have adequate access to

and training in the appropriate technologies to meet the expectations of their teachers and school.

LITERATURE REVIEW The research study originated after identifying an omission in the educational technology research

literature. Little research was found in the area of student access to technology outside of school. It

became clear the “black box” needed to be opened to fully understand the technology access domain of

students. This requires describing the overall exposure students have to technology. The case study

concentrates on the student access aspect of educational technology at the research school.

Technology Access

Students in urban schools have long struggled to gain access to technology (Walker, 1997).

Partnerships are one way that schools can increase student access, but partnerships are initially

dependent on the individuals who form them. Institutionalization of the roles of those involved in

partnerships is required for them to become ingrained in organizational cultures. Nevens (2001)

describes a framework for understanding and describing levels of technology access in schools. The

four stages in this framework are: early tech, developing tech, advanced tech, and target tech. Early

tech schools have very limited access to computers and the internet, with computer to student ratios on

the order of one to ten. Developing tech schools have slightly better access, but the technology tools

are mainly used for accessing reference information. In advanced tech schools, student access

increases but more importantly, teachers develop curriculum with technology woven into the

curriculum not only as a research tool, but as a tool for collaboration and presentation. Target tech

schools approach a one-to-one level of computer access, and have a wide range of technology tools

beyond networked computers including digital cameras, scanners, video editing suites, and technology

for data collection in the mathematics and science content areas.

Technology access in urban schools with high poverty levels still falls well behind schools in

districts with higher property values because of, among other reasons, school funding formulas which

are outdated (Garland and Wotton, 2001). Public-private partnerships can assist schools, but it will be

difficult to close the gap without some type of government intervention. Legislators continue to resist

wholesale changes to school funding structures, even when they have repeatedly been ruled

unconstitutional by state supreme courts (Phillis, 2005). Downes and Pogue (1994) published

extensive calculations of the additional cost for educating low-income students and determined that

amount to be nearly $800 per year per student, and this amount has certainly increased due to inflation

since their research was published. With current technology costs, simply one year of investing this

money into the families of low income students could provide these families with the access they lack.

Technology access and ethnicity are hard to differentiate from accompanying societal factors such as

peer group dynamics and socioeconomic status (Clifton, 2006). Becker (2000) describes the need to

expand technology resources for low income families. The need for universal broadband internet access

appears as a common theme in the literature. The definition of technology access is extended beyond

hardware and software to include use, training, experience and application in Chisholm, Carey and

Hernandez’s (2002) discussion of the importance of information technology skills in a pluralistic

society.

Assessing Technology Access Work began on a general student survey in early 2011 as part of a related research project focusing on

classroom technology. Previous research in the area of educational technology (Carstens & Pelgrum,

2009) and 21st Century Skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) established a foundation for the


Session 1-1


survey. Composition of the student technology survey involved a thorough review of contemporary

student technology surveys through educational technology journals, online resources and personal

archives. While working on the first version of the student technology survey, no instrument was

found covering the construct of ICT access and use outside of school. A parallel set of questions was

added to complement existing questions for student technology use in school, resulting in two

constructs at this stage of development. Two additional constructs were identified and found to be

important for assessing how students experience and relate to ICT. As a result, questions were added

for 21st Century Skills (Corn et al, 2010) and use of technology for learning (Panhandle Area Education

Consortium, 2011). The survey design process resulted in a comprehensive student survey covering

four constructs: student technology use in school, student technology use and access outside of school,

21st Century Skills, and use of technology for learning.

Methodology

The educational technology literature suggests a logic model for exploring access to technology,

developed through use of technology and ultimately concluding with outcomes (Warschauer &

Matuchniak, 2010). The single descriptive case study presented here concentrates on the technology

access aspect of this model. In particular, the study concentrates on student access to computers and

the internet. The principal methods used are case study and sequential explanatory research designs,

supported by a student survey and school leader semi-structured interview.

Using a mixed methods case study framework provides a mechanism for triangulating data to

support conclusions and validate findings. One of the benefits of the mixed methods case study method

is that it produces data from multiple sources, including researcher notes, documents, tables, narratives,

and archival materials (Yin, 2008). Evidence was collected from the research school in a database with

relevant materials presented as supporting documentation for the descriptions and accounts of the case.

One of the limitations of the singular case study method is that results can’t be generalized beyond the

research school. In addition, since survey responses are self-reported, there is the possibility that

students did not respond honestly. The fact that the school is composed of grades seven through eleven

could make it hard to compare these findings to other STEM schools having a different structure.

The following propositions were evaluated and they directed the initial phase of the research:

Student use of ICT is controlled by access limitations.

Student access to ICT differs based on the availability and location of resources.

Realistic teacher expectations are informed by understanding the overall technology

exposure of students, thereby grounding expectations in the students’ reality.

Course and project requirements should be aligned with student access limitations, or

accommodations should be made to promote student access.

These initial propositions were expounded upon after identifying a technology access gap (TAG) at the

research school - the access students have to technology at school is significantly greater than it is away

from school. TAG is not defined clearly in educational technology research and is therefore introduced

here as a missing variable. Further inquiry was guided by two principal research questions, which are

the key drivers for the data collection and analysis stage of the study. Is the TAG relevant to educators,

and if so, how can this information be used to improve pedagogy?

Student Technology Access and Use Survey

The relevant issues for student technology access were enumerated through the survey design process,

which helped define the context for the case study. For example, the researchers determined it was

insufficient to simply ask about technology access “at home” since it omits possible exposures

elsewhere. Since access to technology in the school was already known through school administrators,


Session 1-1


asking students about this aspect of technology access was excluded from the final survey. The Student

Technology Access and Use Survey (STAUS) covers four constructs, as previously described (see

Appendix A).

Survey testing began a few months prior to administering the survey. The feedback received

from school administrators, teachers and students during testing helped refine the survey. Student

comments resulted in better defined terminology and response scales, and other comments clarified

item ambiguity. Subsequently, the skip logic in the survey was revised and response scales were

simplified, resulting in reduction in the overall length of the instrument. The time to complete the

survey using an online survey tool (Sersion & Stevens, 2011) was approximately ten minutes. The

survey was administered to students at the research school during their regular technology class over a

three week period in late 2011. After administering the survey, a computer software package was used

for data analysis and reporting purposes (IBM SPSS Statistics, version 19).

School Leader Interview Protocol

The school leader interview protocol was developed to facilitate a semi-structured interview with either

school principals or other school leaders. The research school culture emphasizes teacher leadership

and therefore the focus was not solely on traditional models of administration and leadership. The

questions assess the selection of the student population, school resources including both hardware and

software, 21st Century Skills, and networking of the school to the larger community (see Appendix B).

FINDINGS

Student Technology Access and Use Survey The research school is located in a large urban district and has a student population of 31,989 students.

It is located in a district composed of 40 elementary, twelve secondary (some with grades seven

through twelve) and three kindergarten through grade twelve schools. The research school is composed

of grades seven through eleven, it is the only STEM school in the district, and has a student population

of 774 students. This is somewhat larger than the average secondary school in the district, which has a

median enrollment of 690 students. This study concentrates on the results from African-American and

White students, representing over 95% of the total population. Other ethnicities are not described

because their contribution is negligible. The final data set used in the analysis contained valid records

for 570 students. This represents a 73.6% response rate.

The results indicate the research school and district are somewhat dissimilar in terms of

demographics. In particular, the percentages of African-American and economically disadvantaged

students at the research school are significantly higher than the district averages; 19.3% and 8.3%

higher respectively. The research school is located in a state that uses free and reduced price lunch

records as a measure for student socioeconomic status, which may result in under-reporting of

economically disadvantaged students since the information is self-reported and requires parents to

complete and return paperwork in order to be included in the program. Gaines (1996) found

“Inequities of class, gender, ethnicity and economic disparity correlate highly with denied or restricted

access to the tools of technology” (p. 1). The last demographic variable considered is mobility, which

is used to measure the number of students moving between schools during an academic year. In the

district, 17% of students enrolled at the beginning of the year changed schools before the end of the

year, some of which may have moved multiple times. The research school has significantly lower

mobility at 6.8%, indicating a more stable student population compared to other schools in the district.

Key demographics for the school and district are summarized in Table 1.


Session 1-1


Table 1: Student Demographics

Demographic School * (%)

District ** (%)

African-American 86.5 67.2 White 9.1 24.4

Economically Disadvantaged

78.2 69.9

Students with Disabilities

23.2 20.4

Mobility 6.8 17.0 Sources:

* research school (November 2011)

** 2010-11 District Needs Assessment (May 2011)

The following variables were evaluated to describe technology access in school: computer to

student ratio, computer reliability, and internet access. A wide range was found when comparing

computer to student ratios in the district (results include Macintosh and Windows-based computers),

from low access (six students per computer) to high access (one computer per student). Two schools,

including the research school, technically have a one to one ratio. However, students are not carrying

computers with them throughout the day and not every classroom is set up as a computer lab. When

discussing computer access it is also important to consider the reliability of computers. Age of

computers was used to describe this aspect of in-school access. The median age of computers for the

district during the period of this study was six years old. The median age of computers at the research

school was better than average at five years old. Based on this profile, the research school is

considered a target tech school (Nevens, 2001).

Technology access away from school was evaluated using results from the student technology

survey. The student technology survey provides two indicators by first asking students if they have

adequate access to computers and then asking if they have adequate access to the internet. The results

of the survey provide firsthand evidence of student access to technology resources away from school.

Survey results indicate that 76.5% of students at the research school have a computer at home

(Question 2). A closer look by ethnicity shows that 86.1% of White students have a computer at home

compared to 75.5% of African-American students. When asked “How often do you use a computer

outside of school” (Question 4), 21.1% of students responded “Less than weekly.” Less than weekly

computer use is considered to be a drastically low level for 21st century learners. Comparing student

ethnicity on this response shows little difference between White and African-American students but on

the other end of the response scale there is a great difference. Overall, 40% of students responded they

use a computer outside of a school on a daily basis: 39% of African-American and 55.6% of White

students. These findings are partially validated by national census results, although the question was

asked differently (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009). Families without home internet were asked

why they did not have internet access. Select STAUS results are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1.


Session 1-1


Table 2: Student Technology Access and Use Survey, Select School Results

Ethnicity

Question 3: Students that have enough

computer access to complete school

assignments

Question 5: Students that have enough

computer access to complete school

assignments outside of school

Question 7: Students that have internet

access at home

African- American

71.4% (n = 360) 65.1% (n = 330) 73.4% (n = 372)

White 75.0% (n = 27) 55.6% (n = 20) 91.7% (n = 33)

All Students

72.3% (n = 410) 64.9% (n = 370) 75.3% (n = 429)

Figure 1: Student Technology Access Locations for School

Survey results indicate a significant difference in internet access for students based on ethnicity.

We found 91.7% of White students from the research school had internet access at home, compared to

73.4% of African-American; 18.3% internet access gap. Comparing this to national results from a few

years prior shows a similar gap for all comparison groups (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009). For

the high school subgroup, 93.2% of White students had internet access at home, compared to 77.0% of

African-American; 16.2% internet access gap (see Figure 2). The similarity in results between the

research school and national comparison group is striking.


Session 1-1


73.4 77.078.6 81.0

91.793.2 92.9 92.9

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

School * HS Only PreK - 12 All Persons

Pe

rce

nt

African-American White

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce 2009 and STAUS 2011*

Figure 2: Internet Access by Ethnicity

School Leader Interview

Despite the challenges to technology access outside of school for some students, both survey results

and the school leader interview indicate high levels of technology integration during the school day.

Ninety-nine percent of Hughes STEM High School students reported using technology most or every

day, as compared with only 45% of the district-wide population. This is tempered by the fact that

conversely, only 68% of students in the school use a computer outside of school, compared with 71.5%

district-wide. This pervasiveness of technology partially accounts for what we describe as the

technology access gap. The district student survey indicated that most students have better technology

access at home than they do at school. However, students at the research school have 40% greater

technology access at school than at home compared to the district average. This means that although

the research school is far more successful in giving students access to technology during the school

day, this has only exacerbated the lack of access outside of school.

The administrator interview with the program facilitator revealed that project-based learning is

the foundation for the use of technology at the research school and the 21st Century Skills of critical

thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are evident in the projects students participate in

to demonstrate their learning to authentic audiences. In addition to traditional software packages like

Microsoft Office and Adobe Design Premium Creative Suite, students use software as a service

resources. For example, Wikispaces allows students to collaborate asynchronously and develop

interdisciplinary presentations for a local museum. Students use Google SketchUp during the process

of building and designing an ecologically green town for their STEM Foundations class project. Field

science experiment toolkits contain digital cameras, Livescribe pens, and laptops in a single digital

backpack and allow students to learn outside the school, collecting data and creating presentations in

the field and with community partners. At the end of their sophomore year, students must create a

Gateway presentation in which they petition to enter into one of four career pathways for their junior

and senior years. This presentation empowers students to creatively choose from any of dozens of

digital presentation techniques they have learned in their curricular projects to advocate for their future.

Based on Nevens’ technology adoption framework, the research school is clearly in the “target tech”


Session 1-1


phase of adoption with both its wide range of technology tools as well as the seamless integration of

technology through multidisciplinary, project-based learning.

CONCLUSIONS In order to advance pedagogy, researchers need to provide educators with relevant information to help

advance practice. It is important to obtain a complete picture of student technology access by

understanding how and where students access ICT away from school. Students can access computer

technology in many locations outside of school, including home, relatives’ or friends’ computers, the

public library, community centers, and virtually anywhere else they have access to the internet through

smart devices (i.e. “the cloud”). Increased access to technology in education is a double-edged sword,

resulting in greater opportunities and advantages for those students with adequate resources to

participate. As teacher expectations increase with the expansion of technology-based tools, the

pressure on students to competently use these tools also increases. The pressure may even be greater

for students that have limited access to technology. Knowing a student’s technology exposure at

school provides limited information for understanding how students are exposed to technology in their

everyday lives. Teachers have the power to close the technology access gap by using assessment tools

to understand the resource limitations of their students. Knowing their students beyond the classroom

will enable teachers to adopt realistic expectations for technology access away from school and enable

students to reach their potential.

This case has identified a missing variable in educational research by describing technology use

and access at a large urban STEM high school, and answered the principal research questions initially

postulated. The Technology Access Gap (TAG) is relevant to any educator concerned with

understanding the ICT limitations of their students and it can be used to improve pedagogy.

Improvement is possible by educating teachers who need to know about the technology resource

limitations of their students. Teachers are already familiar with the process and utility of making

accommodations for students with disabilities. A similar practice could be followed for limited

technology access students. In the 21st century learning environment, learning options are required to

meet the diverse needs of students, and this condition is extended to students having limited access to

technology. Once the need for accommodations is established at the school level, the scope for

accommodations can be broadened to the district level. Accommodation programs, such as free Wi-Fi

and laptop check-out, and creative solutions such as flexible transportation to allow students to stay

after school, are necessary to fill the gap so that educators provide equitable access to information and

communication technologies. This is an important step towards opening the playing field for all 21st

century learners.

SUGGESTIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES In a high poverty urban school, it is difficult to overestimate the amount of effort that is necessary to

support a modern, project-based STEM curriculum. Downes and Pogue (1994) document the

additional costs associated with educating disadvantaged students, but even their analysis is based on a

traditional academic curriculum and not a STEM-focused one. Any STEM school needs to build

equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement costs into its budget, as well as costs for subscriptions

to internet-based software and services. Our survey suggests, however, that accommodations also need

to be made for students lacking ICT access outside of school. Through partnerships with businesses

and universities, grants or donations may be able to cover some of the costs of properly resourcing

students.

In order for schools to know what technology support and services are needed and by whom,

some type of survey or assessment should be conducted. STAUS offers schools a tool to assess

technology access and use at school and away from school, in addition to measuring integration of 21st


Session 1-1


Century Skills. The school in this case study provides high levels of technical support to both students

and staff. This is critical to avoid frustration and encourage innovation. The hiring process for staff at

the research school included assessing prospective teachers’ comfort with adoption of technology and

collaborative skills. Other STEM schools would do well to have similar hiring filters in place.

Write-in responses on STAUS indicated students’ frustration with not being able to take

technology from school home with them. The initial cohort of students at the research school was told

that part of the STEM program involved permission to take laptop computers home. Although the

business community has been generous in providing the school with laptop and desktop computers,

there is not yet a process in place for students to take equipment home. In order for a check-out

program to be successful, efforts should be made to expand the existing partnership with a local

university and tap into ICT resources such as undergraduate assistants. Additional grants could cover

the cost of developing and maintaining a check-out program for low-income students and upper class

students from the research school could be trained for leadership positions to handle much of the

program in-house.

FUTURE WORK Although the implemented technology access survey produced the desired results, examination of the

findings has still left us with an incomplete understanding of student’s technology access. Additional

work is needed to understand in greater detail both the problems leading up to the lack of student

technology access, and we need to learn more about teachers’ understanding of student technology

access and how accommodations are being made to fill the gap.

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with students and teachers would help to create a richer

description of technology access issues. From the perspective of the researchers, we would be able to

more fully describe teacher implementation of accommodations for students with limited access to

technology. Currently, the school offers study tables after school three days a week, during which

students have access to computer labs. Teachers also make individual agreements with students to

increase their technology access in more creative ways. However, because the research school is open-

enrollment and students come from a large urban area, not all students can stay late due to

transportation limitations. Still other students are unable to stay late because they have younger

siblings to care for after school. The process of conducting interviews would serve to increase teacher

awareness of student technology access issues.

A clear extension of the current study is to explore the other constructs of the student

technology survey which were not covered in this case study. Completing a validation study of the

Student Technology Use and Access Survey (STAUS) would enhance educational technology practice

by providing a validated instrument for researchers’ use. In addition, defining the technology access

gap as an educational metric would contribute to educational research by providing a standard measure

for educators, allowing comparisons across schools and districts. Initial thoughts in this line of

research include exploring ICT exposure scales and the fact that conceptually, the “gap” may be better

understood in terms of a balance.


Session 1-1


APPENDIX A - STAUS INSTRUMENT


Session 1-1



Session 1-1


APPENDIX B - ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY QUESTIONS

Technology Access and Use at an Emerging Urban STEM High School

Principal/Program Facilitator Interview Questions

1. How are students selected for this school?

2. What prerequisites are there for students attending this school?

3. How did this school acquire the technology that students use?

4. Describe the major pieces of hardware used on a regular basis by teachers and students.

5. Describe the major software packages used on a regular basis by teachers and students.

6. What 21st Century Skills does this school incorporate into the curriculum?

7. What support mechanisms are in place for students needing additional time or training

with the technology? 8. What is the documented poverty rate at your school? How does this impact instruction?

9. Describe your school’s connections to the statewide and/or national STEM networks

of schools. 10. What are some of the major project-based learning (PBL) activities for students at

your school which integrate technology?


Session 1-1


REFERENCES Becker, H. J. 2000. Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer

technology. The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75.

Carstens, R., Ed, & Pelgrum, W. J. 2009. Second information technology in education study:

SITES 2006 technical report. Amdsterdam, NL: International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement.

Chisholm, I., Carey, J., & Hernandez, A. 2002. Information technology skills for a pluralistic

society: Is the playing field level? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 58.

Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. 2008. Self-report measures and findings for information technology

attitudes and competencies. In (pp. 349-365). Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-

73315-9_21.

Clifton, N. S. 2006. An examination of home and school technology access and usage in relation

to urban high school students and the achievement gap. Harvard University).

Corn, J., Stallings, T., Stanhope, D., Townsend, M., Patel, R., Argueta, R., & Kleiman, G. 2010.

Governor Perdue's North Carolina student learning conditions (SLCS); survey validation study - phase

II. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. 2001. From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying

internet use as penetration increases. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural

Policy Studies.

Downes, T., & Pogue, T. 1994. Adjusting school aid formulas for the higher cost of educating

disadvantaged students. National Tax Journal, 47(1), 89-110.

Frederick, R. & Shockley, K. 2008. Culturally responsive uses of technology: A

portrait of three teachers working in urban schools. Electronic Journal for the Integration of

Technology in Education, 7(1), 3-21.

Garland, V. E., & Wotton, S. E. 2002. Bridging the digital divide in public schools. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 30(2), 115-23.

Hanover Research. 2011. K-12 STEM education overview. Washington, DC: Hanover Research.

Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. 2008. The importance of information technology attitudes and

competencies in primary and secondary education. In International handbook of information

technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 321-331). Boston, MA: Springer US.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_19.

Nevens, T. M. 2001. Fast lines at digital high. IEEE Spectrum, 38(4), 16-17.

doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2001.915196.

Panhandle Area Education Consortium. 2011. Student technology survey.

http://www.paec.org/teacher2teacher/studentnetssurveyt2t.pdf .

Phillis, W. L. 2005. Ohio's school funding litigation saga: More money and some new buildings

but the same unconstitutional school funding structure. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 313.

Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. 2002. The learning return on our educational technology investment: A

review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA.

Roblyer, M., & Knezek, G. 2003. New millennium research for educational technology: A call for

a national research agenda. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 60.

Sivin-Kachala, J., Bialo, E. R., & Langford, J. 1997. The effectiveness of technology in schools:

'90-'97 report. New York, NY: Software Publishers Association.

SPSS Statistics 19. 2011. Release Version 19.0.0, SPSS, Inc., 2009, Chicago,

IL, (available at: http://www.spss.com).

TechTerms.com. 2010. from http://www.techterms.com/definitions/ict

http://www.paec.org/teacher2teacher/studentnetssurveyt2t.pdf

http://www.techterms.com/definitions/ict


Session 1-1


Sersion, B. L., & Stevens, D.M. 2011. Student technology access and use survey (STAUS).

http://www.zoomerang.com.

U. S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Current population survey. Washington, DC: Census

Bureau.

U. S. Department of Education. 2006. Computer and internet use by students in 2003: Statistical

analysis report. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

U. S. Department of Education. 2010. Transforming american education: Learning powered by

technology. national education technology plan, 2010. (No. ED512681). U. S. Department of

Education.

U. S. Department of Education. 2011. Digital nation: Expanding internet usage. Washington,

D.C.: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Walker, V. A. 1997. The great technology divide: How urban schools lose. The Education Digest,

62(6), 47.

Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. 2010. New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence

of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

AUTHORS INFORMATION Brian L. Sersion is a program evaluator and research analyst at Cincinnati Public Schools, Research

and Evaluation Department. He holds a MS in Quantitative Analysis from the University of Cincinnati

(1999) and BS in Geological Sciences from Ohio University (1988). Brian is an ASQ Certified Quality

Engineer and his leadership in the Statistics Division has led to numerous awards from the Society. He

can be contacted at: [email protected].

Douglas M. Stevens is a doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati in educational studies and

teaches English and technology at Hughes STEM High School, part of Cincinnati Public Schools. His

current research focuses on technology access and equity, student voice empowerment, and school

organizational culture with a focus on relational theory and teacher leadership. He can be contacted at:

[email protected].

http://www.zoomerang.com/

student technology access in an urban stem high...

Documents