A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning With Technology on Student Outcomes

Previous | Contents | Next

Purpose of the Study

Although there is an adequate knowledge base about the impact of technology on student outcomes, there are still several areas where the decision-making process is hampered due to the scant knowledge base in educational technology. One area in need of a synthesis of the research is examining the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. The knowledge base is not consistent as to what type of classroom instruction and instructional setting is most beneficial for teaching and learning with technology in K–12 classrooms.

The purpose of the present study is to synthesize recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. This quantitative synthesis investigates these results by addressing the following questions:

• How extensive is the empirical evidence on the relationship between teaching and learning with technology and student outcomes?
  
  

• What is the magnitude and direction of the relationship between teaching and learning with technology and student outcomes?
  
  

• Are there certain social contexts or student characteristics that affect the relationship?
  
  

• Are there particular methodological characteristics that affect the relationship?
  
  

• Are there specific characteristics of the technology that affect its relationship with student outcomes?
  
  

• Are there specific characteristics of instructional features that affect technology's relationship with student outcomes?
  
  

To answer these questions, this study quantitatively synthesized experimental and quasi-experimental published research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes in naturalistic settings. The techniques of research synthesis that were applied derive from the work of Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981) and Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (1982) on meta-analysis, as well as contributions from Arthur, Bennett, and Huffcutt (2001), Durlak (1995), and Lipsey and Wilson (2001).

Previous | Contents | Next