| 0:00:03 | quantity versus quality new approach to examine the relationship between technology used in student outcomes |
|---|
| 0:00:11 | doctor general a school of education of syracuse university |
|---|
| 0:00:16 | two thousand and doctor original a is an assistant professor in the department of instructional |
|---|
| 0:00:22 | design development and evaluation that the school of education of syracuse university hypothesis the relationship |
|---|
| 0:00:30 | between technology implementation in student outcomes is controlled by the quality of technology is used |
|---|
| 0:00:37 | not the quantity of technology implemented |
|---|
| 0:00:40 | procedures doctoral a investigated technology quantity by measuring the time student spent on computers everyday |
|---|
| 0:00:47 | technology quality was examined by looking at how the classroom technology was used |
|---|
| 0:00:54 | doctoral a administrative a survey and interview two hundred thirty seven students twelve to thirteen |
|---|
| 0:00:59 | years old from a technological range of western school in the united states at the |
|---|
| 0:01:05 | beginning and end of the academic school here the survey include twenty eight technology uses |
|---|
| 0:01:11 | related to subject areas |
|---|
| 0:01:13 | data analysis was preformed at the conclusion of the academic school year results when only |
|---|
| 0:01:19 | the quantity of technology use was examined and no significant association was observed |
|---|
| 0:01:26 | when the quality of technology was examined by investigating the specific types of technology uses |
|---|
| 0:01:31 | a significant association was identified between technology use and all student outcomes |
|---|
| 0:01:37 | general technology uses were positively associated with students technology proficiency while subject specific technology uses |
|---|
| 0:01:45 | were negatively associated with students technology proficiency |
|---|
| 0:01:50 | social communication technology uses we're significantly positively associated with developmental outcomes such as self esteem |
|---|
| 0:01:57 | positive attitude towards school |
|---|
| 0:02:00 | table one lists the effect size of the regression coefficients of each technology use on |
|---|
| 0:02:05 | every student outcome |
|---|
| 0:02:07 | results in table eight showed different technology uses have different influences on specific student outcomes |
|---|
| 0:02:14 | general technology uses were positively associated with students technology proficiency but the influence on other |
|---|
| 0:02:21 | outcomes was an animal subject specific technology use had a significantly negative association with students |
|---|
| 0:02:28 | technology proficiency |
|---|
| 0:02:29 | in addition to the noticeable positive association with student academic achievement social communication technology use |
|---|
| 0:02:37 | had a significantly positive influence on student developmental outcomes |
|---|