equitable technology integration - vanderbilt university
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Email: [email protected]
Caroline Martin
Master of Education in International Education Policy and Management
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
Email: [email protected]
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]
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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,
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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).
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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)
Equitable Technology Integration
36
Figure 2. Facilitating Conditions Within and Across Settings
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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).
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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.
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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?
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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
Equitable Technology Integration
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?