This literature review is an examination is taking place to examine the question of: what are the effects of technology on achievement for Pre-Algebra students in middle school? School districts across the world have been piloting the use of technology in the classroom to increase student achievement for many years. Stanic and Kilpatrick (2004) state “for mathematics curriculum reform, two historical moments stand out- the first at the turn of the century when a curriculum of unified and applied mathematics was the focus, the other coming during the 1950s and 1960s when modern mathematics was the core of reform efforts” (p. 12). The current root of reform involves technology and the way it can assist, enhance and manage instruction will
…show more content…
Kirkpatrick and Cuban (as cited by Barrow et al., 2009) explain that “CAI provides drills exercises and tutorials” (p. 53). When this instructional practice is not paired with another higher level thinking skill, often provides data that can be inconclusive. For example, “CAI effects appear larger for students in larger classes, especially those with a high level of student heterogeneity in math achievement and those in classes in which students have poor records” (p. 55). As class sizes increase in school districts each year, the need for individualized instruction increases as well. Barrow et al., (2009) share “there is some evidence CAI is more effective in larger classes, consistent with the hypothesis that the main benefit of CAI is the individualization of instruction” (p. 71). Quantitatively, teachers have found the percentages of standardized test questions that are easily targeted by CAI. Moreover, Mun and Tiong (as cited by Khalid, Yamin & Sari (2012) uncovered that “50% of the PMR and UPSR questions set 2003-2006 was categorically put as simple, 30% are medium difficulty and 20% are challenging” (p. …show more content…
Kirkpatrick and Cuban (as cited by Barrow et al., 2009) define CEI “uses the Internet or other computer programs, such as graphics or word processing, to enhance lessons and projects directed by the teacher” (p. 53). Students start the process of working independently from less instructions. Levine and Wasmuth (2004) discuss a study completed by instructing classes with and without the use of their laptop during instructional times (p. 137). The students that participated and were allowed to use technology were able to interact with several different applets during the lessons, while the other group worked without technology. Each instruction method delivered was different and there was a noticeable difference in the student’s attitude. Levine and Wasmuth (2004) share a synopsis of a teacher observation saying “when the teacher asked the students to use their laptops to experiment with the simulation program on the Web, she had difficulty getting the students to close the laptops after the activity because they were so engaged in the study” (p. 138). More CEI software that Barron and Kantor (1993) provide insight on can be: distance learning technology, simulation software and multimedia software (para. 12, 13). Although all of these technology strategies are directly used by students, teachers can utilize available technology through an interactive SMART board. Minor, Losike-Sedimo,
Kirkpatrick and Cuban (as cited by Barrow et al., 2009) explain that “CAI provides drills exercises and tutorials” (p. 53). When this instructional practice is not paired with another higher level thinking skill, often provides data that can be inconclusive. For example, “CAI effects appear larger for students in larger classes, especially those with a high level of student heterogeneity in math achievement and those in classes in which students have poor records” (p. 55). As class sizes increase in school districts each year, the need for individualized instruction increases as well. Barrow et al., (2009) share “there is some evidence CAI is more effective in larger classes, consistent with the hypothesis that the main benefit of CAI is the individualization of instruction” (p. 71). Quantitatively, teachers have found the percentages of standardized test questions that are easily targeted by CAI. Moreover, Mun and Tiong (as cited by Khalid, Yamin & Sari (2012) uncovered that “50% of the PMR and UPSR questions set 2003-2006 was categorically put as simple, 30% are medium difficulty and 20% are challenging” (p. …show more content…
Kirkpatrick and Cuban (as cited by Barrow et al., 2009) define CEI “uses the Internet or other computer programs, such as graphics or word processing, to enhance lessons and projects directed by the teacher” (p. 53). Students start the process of working independently from less instructions. Levine and Wasmuth (2004) discuss a study completed by instructing classes with and without the use of their laptop during instructional times (p. 137). The students that participated and were allowed to use technology were able to interact with several different applets during the lessons, while the other group worked without technology. Each instruction method delivered was different and there was a noticeable difference in the student’s attitude. Levine and Wasmuth (2004) share a synopsis of a teacher observation saying “when the teacher asked the students to use their laptops to experiment with the simulation program on the Web, she had difficulty getting the students to close the laptops after the activity because they were so engaged in the study” (p. 138). More CEI software that Barron and Kantor (1993) provide insight on can be: distance learning technology, simulation software and multimedia software (para. 12, 13). Although all of these technology strategies are directly used by students, teachers can utilize available technology through an interactive SMART board. Minor, Losike-Sedimo,