ISSN 2582-5445 (online)

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 107    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM

    1 Author(s):  DR. J.K. CHAUHAN

Vol -  6, Issue- 1 ,         Page(s) : 53 - 77  (2019 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSI

Abstract

Late discoveries have demonstrated that in danger understudies in evaluations k-12are being denied of difficulties and of the opportunity to utilize complex reasoning aptitudes. The reason for this examination is to decide the impact that the dimension of PC innovation use in the classroom has on in danger understudies' evaluations and participation. An instructor innovation review is utilized to gauge instructor utilize, understudy utilize and by and large utilization of innovation in the classrooms. The example for this examination comprises of instructors from a Northwest Ohio secondary school. Aftereffects of the ponder show that instructors' innovation utilize, understudies' innovation utilize, and in general innovation utilize have no critical beneficial outcome on the evaluations and participation of in danger understudies. Also the investigation finds that innovation utilize is low among the instructors in the example. These outcomes propose that for innovation to be Successful and roll out improvements in danger understudies' evaluations and participation, schools must be set up for innovation use in the classroom. Pioneers need to build up a model that would incorporate a mutual vision, whole school network contribution, particular preparing for staff and time for the preparation, a full time innovation executive and time for the staff to impart and share among associates for innovation to be a compelling instrument in the classroom educational programs.

• Applebee, N., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1989). Crossroads in American education. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• Archer, J. (1998). The link to higher scores. Retrieved on 27 February 2000. Available: www.edweek.org/sreports/tc98/ ets-n.htm.
• Baker, E., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. (1990). The Apple classrooms of tomorrow: 1990 UCLA evaluation study (Report to Apple Computer). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
• Barron, L., & Goldman, E. (1994). Technology and education reform: the reality behind the promise. In B. Means (Ed.), Integrating technology with teacher preparation (pp. 81–110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Beck, L. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York: Teacher College Press. Becker, H. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(4),
• 385–406.
• Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban Right? Revision of paper written for the January, 2000 School Technology Leadership conference of the Council of Chief State School Offi- cers, Washington, DC.
• Becker, H., Ravitz, J., & Wong Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Center for research on information technology. University of Irvine, CA and University of Minnesota.
• Bork, A. (1985). Personal computers for education. New York: Harper  &  Row. Bracey, G. W. (1991). Why can’t they be like we were? Phi Delta Kappan, 104–117.
• Brand, G. A. (1998). What research says: training teachers for using technology. Retrieved on 10 June 1998. Available: http://www.nsdc.org/library/jed/jsdw98brand.html.
• Bryk, A., & Thum, Y. (1989). The effect of high school organization on dropping out: an exploratory investigation.
• American Educational Research Journal, 26, 353–383.
• Buchanan, T. T., & Smith, R. M. (1998). Restructuring courses in higher education to model constructivist practice.
• Action on Teacher Education, 20(3), 62–72.
• Byrom, E. (1997). Review of the professional literature on the integration of technology into educational programs. Retrieved on 6 March 2000. Available: www.serve.org/technolgy/litreview.html.
• Cohen, V. (1997). Learning styles in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(4), 338–350.
• Cohen, V. (1999). Looking at the big picture in technology assessment: what questions should we ask? Retrieved on 11 November 1999. Available: http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel990305/vcohen.htm.
• Comprehensive plan: A guide for growth 1998–2003. Wood County Comprehensive Plan. Center for Governmental Research and Public Service, Bowling Green State University.
• Cuban, L. (1991, September). The secret about U.S. test scores. San Jose Mercury News (pp. C1, C5).
• Dwyer, D. (1994, April). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: what we’ve learned. Retrieved 24 February 2002. Available: http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9404/dwyer.html.
• Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1990). The evolution of teachers’ instructional beliefs and practices in high- access-to technology classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Association, Boston.
• Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich class- rooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52.
• Dyril, O. E., & Kinnaman, D. E. (1994). Preparing for the integration of emerging technologies. Technology & Learn- ing, 14(9), 92–100.
• Franekel, J., & Wallen, N. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. Jaber, William (1997). A survey of factors which influence teachers’ use of computer-based technology. Dissertation Vir-
• ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
• Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (1989). Kids and computers: A positive vision of the future. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 73–86.
• Lee, J. R., & Johnson, C. (1998). Helping higher education faculty clear instructional technology hurdles. Educational Technology Review, 10, 13–17.
• Means, B. (Ed.). (1994). Technology and education reform: the reality behind the promise. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
• Means, B. (1997). Critical Issue: using technology to enhance engaged learning for at-risk students. Retrieved on 21 November 1999. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/400.
• Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Remz, A., & Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. (Office of Educational Research and Improvement). Washington, DC: Department of Education (Retrieved on 14 July 2001. Available: www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms).
• Means, B., Chelemer, C., & Knapp, M. (Eds.). (1991). Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: views from research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
• Means, B., & Olson, K. (1994). Tomorrow’s schools: technology and reform in partnership. In B. Means (Ed.), Tech- nology in educational reform: the reality behind the promise (pp. 191–222). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Metz, M. (1988). Some missing elements in the educational reform movement. Educational Administration Quarterly,
• 24(4), 446–460.
• Negroponte, N,. Renick, M., & Cassell, J. (1997). Creating a learning revolution. Retrieved on 24 July 2001. Available: http://education.unesco.org/unesco/educprog/lwf/doc/portfolio/opinion8.htm.
• Ohio SchoolNet (1999). Ohio Department of Education, Columbus, OH.
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
• Ragosta, M. (1983). Computer-assisted instruction and compensatory education: a longitudinal analysis. Machine- Mediated Learning, 1, 97–127.
• Report of the Ohio Schools Technology: Implementation Task Force (1999, March).
• Roderick, M. (1993). The path to dropping out: Evidence for intervention. Westport, Ct: Auburn House.
• Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76–101.
• Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Bank Street College of Education.
• Texas Education Agency. (1991). A study of the impact of educational reform on at-risk students in Texas (TEA Pub- lication No. GE1-543-01). Austin, TX: Publications Distribution Office.
• US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on: New tools for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: making the connection (Report No. OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• US Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center of Education Sta- tistics (1999). The condition of education: 1999. Education statistics quarterly, Vol. 1(3). Government Printing Office.
• Vannatta, R., & O’Bannon, B. (2002). Beginning to put the pieces together: a technology infusion model for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4), 112–123.
• Wehlage, G., Rutter, R., Smith, G., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. (1989). Reducing the Risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc..
• Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it computer: the relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Servi

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details