Running head: TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 1

Traditional versus Technological Teaching

Cady Faust

Coastal Carolina University

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 2

Introduction

The use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in the classroom has gradually

increased as technology advances and education evolves. A Learning Management System is a

software application used for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting, and delivery

of educational content (Pappas, 2018). We live in a world where technology dominates our

surroundings. It is apparent that students would prefer to play video games, interact with a

smartphone, watch tv, or utilize an iPad. Today’s children must be taught how to progress with

technology at the rate necessary to be competent efficient members of the present, and future.

Due to this, there is an obvious correlation between the advancements of technology and

increased use in all educational settings.

With the use of technology and Learning Management Systems on the rise, I

contemplate: Does using a Learning Management System increase students’ correct completion

of assigned tasks? Throughout this school year, my class has struggled with not only the

completion of familiar tasks, but acceptable achievement on classwork assignments. For the

purpose of this paper and conducting my research, I have designed four like classwork

assignments, with equivalent depth of knowledge questions, the same number of questions, and

total points possible. They will be administered bi-weekly alternating between the use of paper

and pencil, and the LMS, Google Classroom.

The participant’s utilized within this study are my eight, fourth-grade self-contained

special education students. Among these students are: three boys and five girls between nine and

ten years of age. The demographics of my class include four African Americans and four

Caucasians. The disabilities include one Other Health Impairment, one Multiple Disabilities,

one Developmental Delay, and five Specific Learning Disability.

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 3

Review of Literature

In the article, “Getting the Most from Google Classroom: A Pedagogical Framework for

Tertiary Educators,” the instructors studied the effectiveness of using Google Classroom as a

learning management system (Heggart & Yoo, 2018). The authors specifically considered four

concepts: pace, ease of access, collaboration, and student voice/agency (Heggart & Yoo, 2018).

The data revealed that the use of Google Classroom increased student participation and learning

(Heggart & Yoo, 2018). The data also revealed the improvement of overall classroom dynamics

(Heggart & Yoo, 2018). However, concerns were found pertaining to pace and user experience

(Heggart & Yoo, 2018). My motivation to conduct this research was specifically related to my

personal struggle to implement technology in my classroom due to the various instructional

levels and needs of my students. As a Special Education teacher, pace and user experience are

two factors directly influenced by the varying instructional levels of my students and their lack

or complete inability to read.

In Budu’s (2018) article, “What Makes Learners Share Feedback or Not in an Online

Community for Education,” he examined the creation of online communities to achieve

engagement between teachers and learners. His results indicated that some learners seem to

prefer means of sharing their feedback offline specifically due to anonymity and convenience

that is absent in a source such as Google Classroom (Budu, 2018). Another result indicated that

offline methods were preferred because they do not require an online connection, which could

serve as a restriction to a low socioeconomic area (Budu, 2018). While this study particularly

focuses on anonymity directly related to negative attentions and foul behaviors, the findings of

this study are very relevant to my quantitative findings. My students’ scores are typically well

below average which increases their preference to remain anonymous to their classmates.
TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 4

Attaching students’ names to all work, including comments, also brings a sense of discomfort to

my students, due to their low instructional levels in reading, writing, and inability to effectively

communicate. I also teach in an urban setting with very low socioeconomic status. All students

are provided a 1:1 device in the school setting, but most students in my classroom do not have

the means to access an online connection to use a Learning Management System at home.

The article, “Digital Technologies in a Design and Technology Lesson and Their

Influence on a Learner’s Situationally Perceived Value of a Task When Engaged in Inquiry-

Based Learning” focuses on the motivation to engage in a task being directly related to its

perceived value (Heindl & Nader, 2018). More specifically, this article narrowed in on how the

use of digital technology influences the learner’s perceived value of the task at hand (Heindl &

Nader, 2018). To take it one step further, the authors also looked at whether a higher perceived

value leads to a more successful learning outcome (Heindl & Nader, 2018). The results indicate

that students using technology versus students using traditional methods to complete the same

task found the task to be significantly more valuable (Heindl & Nader, 2018). This research is

pertinent to the anticipated presumptions regarding my own data. The use of technology will

increase student motivation and perceived value of the task. However, results vary depending on

a multitude of factors, especially in a special education setting, including, but not limited to,

student capabilities, student disability, and overall academic performance levels.

In “Students’ Attitudes toward Teacher Use of Technology in Classrooms” research was

conducted to see the correlation between teacher beliefs regarding utilizing interactive

technology and student beliefs (Hoffmann & Ramirez, 2018). The researchers find that students

are very confident in using technology to access information (Hoffmann & Ramirez, 2018).

Results also indicate students believe teacher’s use of technology within the classroom is vital to
TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 5

student’s overall performance in life (Hoffmann & Ramirez, 2018). The students assessed in the

study revealed that they feel they thrive academically when teachers use technology in group

work due to being more attentive to the task (Hoffmann & Ramirez, 2018). The methodology

investigated in this study proved to be accurate in my classroom. When I utilize technology for

whole group instruction, small group instruction, and student’s individualized use of iPads, only

teacher-led completion and achievement of tasks increase.

“Integrating Popular Web Applications in Classroom Learning Environments and Its

Effects on Teaching, Student Learning Motivation and Performance” proposed a learning

environment using well-known web applications to supplement classroom teaching and learning

materials (Lin & Jou, 2013). The article provides instruction to assist teachers in facilitating

overall student learning and participation and help improve motivation and overall performance

(Lin & Jou, 2013). Lin and Jou (2013) showed that students had higher learning motivation and

participation, but not overall performance. I expect this research will precisely align with my

qualitative and quantitative data. Results through observation will show an obvious increase in

motivation and student participation, but student’s overall performance will remain stagnant.

My review of literature provided me with a variety of information relatable to my

methodology. My hypothesis is that increase in motivation will have a direct correlation on

completeness when using a Learning Management System, but scores will remain similar with

implementation of assignments through an LMS and traditional methods.

Methodology

To conduct my study regarding the quanitative portion, I created and assigned my

students with two reading assignments and two math assignments to be completed in class. The
TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 6

assignments were completed bi-weekly alternating between the use of paper and pencil and

Google Classroom. Students were given a single class period to complete each assignment.

They were allotted additional time for incomplete assignments for the purpose of recording

completed data for this study. The information being measured and depth of knowledge for each

question on all assignments remained the same for validity.

To triangulate the data for my study, I collected qualitative data through observation and

conducting a verbal survey with students individually. Observations were completed and

information was compiled during all assignments. Survey questions were created using

backward design and discussed with students after the assignments were completed using both

modes of delivery.

Analysis

After completing all assignments using paper and pencil, Google Classroom, natural

observations, and verbally surveying my students, I had triangulated data to analyze the results.

On the charts and graphs provided below, you will find the quantitative data gathered for my

study.

Assignment Statistics:

 8 students evaluated
 Green data = Higher score achieved
 Yellow data = Same score achieved
 Blue data = Higher score achieved and completion of task
 I = Incomplete
 C = Complete
TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 7

Assignment #1: Math (Achievement)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 20 0

2 20 53

3 47 20

4 33 93

5 47 13

6 40 40

7 53 40

8 60 33

Average 50% 37%

Assignment #1: Math (Completeness)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 I C

2 C C

3 I C

4 I I

5 C C

6 I I

7 C C

8 C C

Findings 4/8 = 50% 6/8 = 75%

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 8

Assignment #1: Math (Achievement & Completeness)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 20 / I 0/C

2 20 / C 53 / C

3 47 / I 20 / C

4 33 / I 93 / I

5 47 / C 13 / C

6 40 / I 40 / I

7 53 / C 40 / C

8 60 / C 33 / C

3/8 = 38% 1/8 = 13%

Assignment #2: Math (Achievement)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 67 67

2 33 25

3 50 25

4 83 75

5 83 50

6 50 50

7 92 67

8 83 75

Average 68% 54%

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 9

Assignment #2: Math (Completeness)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 C I

2 I I

3 I I

4 C C

5 C I

6 I I

7 C C

8 C C

Findings 5/8 = 63% 3/8 = 38%

Assignment #2: Math (Achievement & Completeness)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 67 / C 67 / I

2 33 / I 25 / I

3 50 / I 25 / I

4 83 / C 75 / C

5 83 / C 50 / I

6 50 / I 50 / I

7 92 / C 67 / C

8 83 / C 75 / C

Average 4/8 = 50% 0/8 = 0%

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 10

Assignment #1: Reading (Achievement)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 50 30

2 100 20

3 100 0

4 50 100

5 60 60

6 80 70

7 100 70

8 50 60

Average 74% 51%

Assignment #1: Reading (Completeness)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 I I

2 C I

3 C I

4 I C

5 C C

6 C I

7 C C

8 C C

Findings 6/8 = 75% 4/8 = 50%

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 11

Assignment #1: Reading (Achievement &

Completion)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 50 / I 30 / I

2 100 / C 20 / I

3 100 / C 0/I

4 50 / I 100 / C

5 60 / C 60 / C

6 80 / C 70 / I

7 100 / C 70 / C

8 50 / C 60 / C

Average 4/8 = 50% 2/8 = 25%

Assignment #2: Reading (Achievement)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 71 21

2 82 71

3 82 0

4 88 93

5 88 50

6 100 90

7 88 64

8 88 57

Average 86% 56%

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 12

Assignment #2: Reading (Completeness)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 C I

2 C I

3 C I

4 C C

5 C C

6 C I

7 C C

8 C I

Findings 8/8 = 100% 3/8 = 38%

Assignment #2: Reading (Achievement)

Student Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

1 71 / C 21 / I

2 82 / C 71 / I

3 82 / C 0/I

4 88 / C 93 / C

5 88 / C 50 / C

6 100 / C 90 / I

7 88 / C 64 / C

8 88 / C 57 / I

Average 7/8 = 88% 1/8 = 13%

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 13

Paper/Pencil vs. Google Classroom Assignment Achievement

100
90
80
70
60
Scores

50
40
30
20
10
0
Math Assignment 1 Math Assignment 2 Reading Assignment 1 Reading Assignment 2
Assignment Type

Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

Paper/Pencil vs. Google Classroom Assignment Completion

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Math Assignment 1 Math Assignment 2 Reading Assignment 1 Reading Assignment 2

Paper/Pencil Google Classroom Column1

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 14

Paper/Pencil vs. Google Classroom Assignment Correct Completion

100
90
80
70
60
Scores

50
40
30
20
10
0
Math Assignment 1 Math Assignment 2 Reading Assignment 1 Reading Assignment 2
Assignment Type

Paper and Pencil Google Classroom

Findings

The results of this study indicated that the use of a Learning Management System did not

increase the students correct completion of assigned tasks in my fourth-grade self-contained

special education class. Various aspects of special education influenced the results of this study.

The analysis of my data shows opposing results compared to my proposed hypothesis.

As shown above, the quantitative data collected reveals a discrepancy between

achievement and completion of assigned tasks when the delivery mode is altered. Math

assignment one findings show a 50% average score, and a 50% completion rate using a paper

and pencil. Achievement using Google Classroom was on average 37% but the completion rate

was greater using Google Classroom for math Assignment 1 at a 75% rate. The correlation

between correctness and completion using paper and pencil was 38%, but only 13% using

Google Classroom. Math Assignment 2 reveales a 68% average score and a 63% completion

rate using a paper and pencil. Achievement using Google Classroom was on average 54%. The
TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 15

completion rate using Google Classroom for math Assignment 2 was 38%. The correlation

between correctness and completion using paper and pencil was 50% and using Google

Classroom was 0%. Reading Assignment 1 shows a 74% average score and a 75% completion

rate using a paper and pencil. Achievement using Google Classroom was on average 51%. The

completion rate using Google Classroom for reading Assignment 1 was 50%. The correlation

between correctness and completion using paper and pencil was 50% and using Google

Classroom was 25%. Reading Assignment 2 shows an 86% average score and a 100%

completion rate using a paper and pencil. Achievement using Google Classroom was on average

56%. The completion rate using Google Classroom was 38%. The correlation between

correctness and completion using paper and pencil was 88% and using Google Classroom was

13%. Overall student achievement is on average 20% greater when completed using a traditional

method of delivery (e.g. paper and pencil). Completion of assigned tasks is also 22% on average

when students can use a pencil and paper compared to a Learning Management System (Google

Classroom).

Qualitative data was collected through observation and verbal surveys. Observations

were completed while students worked on all assignments. The overall demeanor of the class

appeared to be more focused during the accomplishment of paper and pencil tasks. During

overall assignments, behaviors, such as unnecessary student interruptions, lack of motivation and

focus, and inefficient use of time was observed. Students appeared extremely distracted to

engage in a preferred tasks when iPads were being used. During all tasks, students needed

continuous redirection. Students repeatedly asked for assistance with the assignments without

attempting them independently.

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 16

The surveys conducted with individual students revealed comparable information. Most

students disclosed that they prefer paper and pencil assignments over a Learning Management

System delivery. Students feel their focus to the task at hand is greater when the iPad doesn’t

interfere. The class shared that their ability levels make it extremely hard to complete

independent tasks regardless of the mode of delivery. They also stated that although certain

subjects are preferred, that typically does not increase their motivation to complete assignments

and accomplish passing grades. Students feel that ample time is provided to complete

assignments but concluded that incomplete assignments are due to undesired behaviors,

inattentiveness to task, and lack of motivation.

The quantitative and qualitative data collectively composed has provided me with

information imperative to the future delivery of my instruction, assignments, and assessments

and success of the students in my classroom. The use of a Learning Management System will be

teacher led for instruction purposes and closely monitored during completion of assignments and

assessments. An LMS will be utilized in whole group, small group, and individual settings.

Graded material will be completed using paper and pencil until ease of use, motivation, and on-

task behaviors increase. Overall, instruction will be tailored toward an increased use in a variety

of technology. Class assignments will be delivered using a variation of delivery methods. I

would also like to conduct the same study with fourth grade general education students, in a

general education setting to compare the results.

In future inquiry, observation, and informal discussion with my students I am eager to

understand if an earlier introduction, continuous implementation, and higher expectations for the

use of an LMS, and technology would increase student motivation and directly impact their

overall completion and performance.

TRADITIONAL VERSUS TECHNOLOGICAL TEACHING 17

References

Budu, J. (2018). What makes learners share feedback or not in an online community for

education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology

Education, 14(4), 48-59.

Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the most from Google Classroom: A pedagogical

framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140-

153.

Heindl, M., & Nader, M. (2018). Digital technologies in a design and technology lesson and their

influence on a learner's situationally perceived value of a task when engaged in inquiry-

based learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(3), 239-

263.

Hoffmann, M. M., & Ramirez, A. Y. (2018). Students' attitudes toward teacher use of technology

in classrooms. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 51-56.

Lin, Y.-T., & Jou, M. (2013). Integrating popular web applications in classroom learning

environments and its effects on teaching, student learning motivation and

performance. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 157-165.

Pappas, C. (2018). What is a Learning Management System? LMS basic functions and features

you must know. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/what-is-an-lms-learning-

management-system-basic-functions-features