10755569

You read ‘The Impact of Classroom Technology on College student Behavior’ in category ‘Essay examples’ Furthermore, Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, Mohundro, and Sayre (1998) concluded that the application of technology adds to the instructor’s believability. Lecturers may manage school time more fficiently since less time is definitely spent publishing on whiteboards or changing transparencies (Daniels, 1999, Mantei, 2000), and so lectures may possibly flow better. Overall, Apperson et ‘s (2006) think that the use of technology in classrooms causes college students to have a more favorable attitude toward their education, and rewards accrue to instructors who have utilize it inside their classes. However , technology usage does not necessarily result in better teaching critiques for faculty. Lowerison ainsi que al found no significant relationship among actual computer system use and perceived successful computer usage on program evaluations (2006).

Several details were presented for this unexpected outcome, including the fact that students may now expect technology to be employed in the class and no much longer see it like a unique course feature that enhances their very own learning. These types of findings happen to be consistent with the Christensen (1999) analyze mentioned before. It may also always be the case that technology is definitely not being used in an appropriate manner, that is, as a transformative, student-centered tool intended for learning, an issue expressed by Burbules and Callister (2000).

Computer technology can also better support diverse demands and capabilities of students, providing the opportunity of deeper control and comprehension of information (McCombs, 2000). As the technology may well enhance the class and engage modern-day student better, most usually do not believe that replaces the need for a structured, content-driving learning method that is grounded in theory. To be effective, technology-based equipment must go along with appropriate pedagogy (Laurillard, 2002).

As McFarlane states, “computer use by itself, without very clear objectives and well designed tasks, is of little intrinsic value (1997). This paper proceeds the request into the effects of technology on college student perceptions that belongs to them learning as well as their academic behavior. PRESENT STUDY College students taking several business classes in a medium-sized Midwestern university or college were asked to take part in research study wanting to assess the influence of the presence or lack of technology in their classroom on self-perceived student efforts and tendencies.

Prior to the study being implemented in person classrooms, course instructors who participated were asked whether or not they produced moderate or perhaps extensive utilization of technology inside their courses. In the event the instructor applied technology relatively or extensively, then the study given in that class asked the students to offer their judgment regarding the way the absence of technology would influence various pieces of The impact of classroom technology, Page 3 Journal of Technology Analysis student learning.

For example , learners were asked whether the deficiency of technology may have a positive or perhaps negative effect on their attentiveness in class as compared to what it was. Alternatively, in the event the instructor indicated that he did not use technology somewhat or thoroughly, then the review given in that class asked the students to offer their thoughts and opinions regarding how a addition of technology could impact them. Thus, for example , students in these sections had been asked if more technology usage by the instructor could affect their own level of course preparation.

Survey questions were based in part in three several student evaluation forms previously or getting used by the researchers’ university, including an early version created and used by all open public institutions inside the state, trainees Instructional Report II and the IDEA Classification Form Report. Both types of the survey used the subsequent five level scale to collect student opinions: “1 was significantly positive, “2 was somewhat positive, “3 was no difference, “4 was to some extent negative, and “5 was significantly negative.

The review also included numerous demographic inquiries to facilitate evaluation of the answers. Among other things, students were asked whether they had been graduate or perhaps undergraduate learners, their program of study or significant, and their yr in school (e. g., junior, sophomore, and so forth ), and also their grade point average and male or female. In total seven business faculty members, including two of the paper’s writers, administered the survey inside their classes.

Teachers participants were selected on such basis as their ranking, varying examples of technological effectiveness and use, discipline, and gender in order to provide a cross-section of programs being evaluated. Classes picked included those at the 100 (first year), 200 (second year), three hundred (junior level), 400 (senior level) and graduate (700) level. In all, the survey was administered in 18 different business classes, including multiple sections of a few of the courses.

The study was given near the commencing of last year’s show up semester. Taking part faculty had been asked to devote class time to allow for the completion of the survey. Enrollment in the sections surveyed totaled 700 students, including a few students who were enrolled in multiple of the classes included in the sample. In total, about 550 workable surveys had been completed and returned. A short summary of demographic details for the undergraduate study respondents is roofed in the Appendix.

RESULTS Stand 1 and 2 demonstrate preliminary effects of the data analysis. In each desk, the suggest response for each question is compared to a neutral response of “3 in order to assess the effects that each group might anticipate given possible within their class room environments. Recollect that each item was based upon the following five point size: “1 , significantly positive, “2 , somewhat confident, “3 , no difference, “4 , somewhat negative, and “5 , significantly negative, creating a lower suggest for a more positive perception.

The mean can be provided for each question plus the number of college students who provided a particular response. Table one particular shows the results pertaining to the surveys given in the classes where the instructor suggested that he used technology moderately or extensively. The survey after that asked the scholars to give their particular opinions concerning how the lack of technology could impact all their learning from the course. There was 374 usable surveys went back from this set of classes. The means in Table one particular fluctuate between your “high 2 range plus the “low 3 range.

Reactions from the learners in these classes that utilized technology claim that students anticipate that the decrease of The impact of classroom technology, Page 4 Journal of Technology Research technology may have a positive influence (mean is less than the neutral response of 3. 0 and statistically not the same as the fairly neutral response) within the amount of time that they study pertaining to class each day, the amount of period they examine for tests and quizzes, the quantity of records they take, their particular overall attendance for the students, and their understanding for the instructor’s effort.

Assuming that college students would perspective less research time since more positive, it appears that students truly feel they would examine less if technology is removed from the course. It appears somewhat counterintuitive that the lack of technology may have a positive influence on the amount of remarks that college students take, however , the “quantity of notes considered can be viewed via two distinct angles. Pupils may contemplate it a positive to take fewer paperwork, and learners may understand that they consider fewer paperwork when technology is used in their classroom.

The loss of technology, according to the college students, would in addition have a positive impact prove attendance and the appreciation pertaining to the instructor’s effort. Learners may perceive that it would be more important to go to class to know the material presented if the records were not offered via technology outside of class. In addition , it seems that students believe that technology may make teaching “easier as the loss of technology might have a positive effect on student value of trainer effort.

In contrast, student answers indicate that students anticipate that the loss of technology could have a negative impact (mean is greater than the neutral response and statistically different from the neutral response) on attentiveness in class, the quantity learned via class, the students’ aspire to take extra classes through the particular teacher, and the students’ desire to consider additional classes in the subject material. These effects suggest that learners perceive there are particular benefits associated with technology utilization in the classroom.

Technology may be one way instructors can keep student fascination. Indeed, the responses apparently suggest that college students perceive that they might find out less if perhaps technology were withdrawn. Students also indicated that they would be less willing to take added classes from your instructor if technology were not used, and they might also become less keen to take more courses inside the same material if technology were not an integral part of the class experience.

However, the responses suggest that learners might be very likely to attend category and have a better appreciation for instructor work if technology were not employed in the class. Results in the two inquiries as to what sort of change in technology use by moderate/intensive to none by any means would impact the scholar’s overall evaluation of the training course and the teacher are also offered in Table 1 . Pupils who at present experience technology in the classroom would rate a course much less favorably if the technology had been removed (mean above the fairly neutral 3. and statistically totally different from the fairly neutral 3. 0). However , the effect on the students’ ratings with the instructor definitely seems to be neutral beneath the loss of technology scenario. Desk 2 reveals the outcomes for the surveys succumbed the classes in which the instructor indicated that he/she did not use technology moderately or perhaps extensively. Those surveys after that asked the students to share their particular thoughts relating to how the addition of technology would effects the the way they behaved in the course. There were 183 usable studies returned from this set of classes.

The suggest for every question was below the neutral response of “3,  which suggests that learners thought that these courses that did not at present use technology could be increased by the addition of it, a lesser mean once again reflects a far more positive impact. The responses provided by the students inside the courses that did not add a technology part indicated that its addition of technology would have an optimistic impact (mean less than and significantly distinct from the neutral response) for all those questions besides two, my spouse and i. e. he amount of interaction together with the instructor beyond class and the students’ aspire to take even more classes inside the subject matter. These results The effect of class room technology, Site 5 Log of Technology Research suggest that in the judgment of the students, the addition of technology would have an overall positive impact issues behavior. The addition of technology might, according to the pupils, have the many positive impact for the students’ appreciation for the instructor’s work, the amount the scholars learn from the course, as well as the quality from the notes which the students take.

According to both Tables 1 and 2, how much interaction that students have with the instructor outside of school is technology “neutral while the indicate was near “3 intended for both editions of the survey. Results of the two inquiries pertaining to the way the addition of technology into a course that will not currently make use of it would effects the student’s overall evaluation of the study course and the instructor are shown in Stand 2 too. The reactions were positive (mean lower than the neutral response of 3. and statistically different from the neutral response of 3. 0). These benefits suggest that the prospect of including technology in the classroom environment seems to increase the probability that pupils would perceive both the program and the instructor in a more beneficial light. In addition to comparing the opportinity for each edition of the review to a simple response of “3,  the means for each version can be in comparison to each other. In Table several, the first set of information (i. at the. the still left side) shows the benefits for the surveys succumbed the classes in which the instructor indicated that he/she applied technology moderately or widely, with the students being asked how the associated with technology will impact their behavior. The other set of data (i. electronic., the right side) shows the results pertaining to the online surveys given in the classes in which the instructor suggested that he did not use technology moderately or substantially, with the college students being asked how the addition of technology would affect their habit.

Responses from those learners in classrooms that at the moment used technology (left set) appeared to suggest a relatively neutral impact on the students’ evaluation of the instructor if technology were taken (mean near to 3. 0), but a slightly more negative (mean over 3. 0) response to the evaluation in the course in the event technology had been withdrawn [see Desk 1]. College students who were in the lecture that did not currently use technology (right set) mentioned that the addition of the technology would improve their evaluation of both the program and the instructor (mean below 3. 0) [see Table 2].

As could possibly be expected provided the different outcomes reported in the first two tables, right after between the two groups were statistically significant for some in the variables since reported in Table 3. Students apparently want technology in the classroom and that desire appears to be reflected inside the overall evaluation of the course and trainer. As Desk 3 demonstrates, students whom are not at present exposed to technology in the classroom generally responded more favorably for the prospect of adding the technology than did pupils who thought the technology being withdrawn.

Eleven with the 17 inquiries reflected statistically significant dissimilarities (? &lt, 0. 050) in the indicate responses between the two teams. In other words, students who at present experience technology in the classroom provided significantly diverse responses coming from those who presently did not include technology in their classroom. The concerns that mirrored statistically significant differences are noted with an “* in Table 3.

For those questions in which a statistically significant difference between the two groups was observed, reactions from college students who at present do not your use of technology in the classroom reflected more positive suggest responses towards the addition of technology use than performed their equivalent who might experience the revulsion of technology in the classroom. The six items which did not generate statistically significant differences involving the two review groups had been as follows: ¢ Amount of time you study for class daily. ¢ Amount of time you study for examinations and quizzes.

The impact of classroom technology, Page 6th Journal of Technology Exploration ¢ Level of notes. ¢ Overall attendance. ¢ Amount of interaction with the teacher during course. ¢ Volume of connection with the trainer outside of category. These outcomes suggest that student perceptions of these six goods are “technology simple.  Put simply, the addition of technology where it truly is currently not really used or the loss of technology where it really is used is definitely not perceived to have a significant impact on the amount of time learners study, the quantity of notes they take, their presence, or their particular interaction together with the instructor.

In comparison for seven of the 12 items proclaimed with an “* in Table a few, technology appears to have a good impact since the loss of technology (left side) has a suggest greater than “3 (negative impact) and the addition of technology (right side) has a mean less than “3 (positive impact). Therefore , according to the comparison of the two samples, technology has important impact on pupil preparation intended for class, attentiveness, quality of your notes taken, scholar participation in class, student learning, desire to take additional classes from the instructor or in the subject matter, and the overall analysis of the course and the trainer.

The student response to one question [student’s appreciation of instructor effort] much more problematic. In each group student reactions suggested a big change from the existing situation may be viewed more positively than maintaining its condition, and each group reflected answers that were substantially different from a neutral response on this question [see Tables you and 2].

Although every single group responded more absolutely than fairly neutral to this question, students inside the group without technology for whom it absolutely was suggested technology might be added responded more positively than did the students who were asked to imagine a class in which the technology might be taken. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that adding technology to classes where it is not currently employed is likely to have a positive effect on student perceptions of the teacher and the course as well as on the majority of aspects of scholar behavior.

However , it interesting to note that removing technology from courses that already use it may not appear to have a negative impact on all aspects of student patterns. For example , removal of technology from a study course might, in accordance to scholar responses, have a positive effect on the amount of time they analyze for school each day, the number of time they will study for exams and quizzes, the amount of notes they take, their general attendance pertaining to the class, and the appreciation pertaining to the instructor’s effort.

Yet , removal of technology from a course that currently utilizes it would be viewed negatively when it comes to the overall analysis of the course, the students’ attentiveness in the lecture, the amount the scholars learn from school, the students’ desire to take additional classes from the particular instructor, plus the students’ wish to take added classes inside the subject matter. A comparison of the loss of technology in a course that currently uses that versus the addition of technology to a training course that does not utilize it suggests that particular number of aspects that are “technology simple. In other words, digging in technology in which it is currently not applied or the loss of technology in which it is employed is not perceived to experience a meaningful effect on the amount of period students study, the quantity of notes they take, their particular attendance, or perhaps their interaction with the trainer. In contrast, technology appears to have got a significant impact on scholar preparation for class, attentiveness, quality of your notes taken, student participation in the lecture, The impact of classroom technology, Page six

Journal of Technology Study student learning, desire to take additional classes from the trainer or inside the subject matter, plus the overall evaluation of the training course and the instructor. The research can be not intended to determine how successful technology was at helping pupils learn or perhaps which technology might be best. Rather, this kind of research focuses on student perceptions or views regarding technology usage and just how adding technology to a training course that does not make use of it or getting rid of technology via a program that truly does use it may possibly impact a student’s perception of the course or the teachers member and also his/her behavior.

These effects suggest that learners taking organization classes only at that Midwestern College or university perceive that technology utilization in the classroom does certainly have an total positive impact. Whilst technological enlargement may not automatically be suitable for all class room situations and all subject matter, these results claim that instructors who also are comfortable using technology and find that this enhances their very own teaching encounter should carry on and incorporate this in their classes. Those who do, however , need to remember technology for what it is ” a device which can have a positive impact on student manners and perceptions when applied appropriately.

LIMITATIONS AND UPCOMING RESEARCH There are many limitations to the current study. The results were drawn from data accumulated from pupils enrolled in business courses in a single Midwestern University and, therefore , the results might not be generalized to carry for different populations such as nonbusiness students or perhaps students for universities in other parts of the country or use the world. Further analysis is presently underway that views the impact of the addition of technology to a course it does not use it or the removal of technology from a course that does use it on a scholar’s perception of instructor effectiveness.

In addition , whilst this particular research focuses on college student perceptions of technology work with, the ultimate objective of technology integration in the classroom should be to support students find out. Therefore , further research to assist to identify which will technology uses are many educationally important would help educators for making informed decisions regarding the plethora of technology tools designed for the classroom today. Increasing a better understanding of student objectives regarding technology use for individuals of different ages would end up being useful details.

Another method of upcoming research, that could only take place subsequent to the 2 avenues earlier mentioned, would be a study of whether college student perceptions will be congruent with the aid of technology equipment that are located to be most beneficial in evolving student learning. The impact of classroom technology, Page 8 Journal of Technology Analysis Table you Comparison of Pupil Responses Relative to a Neutral Response intended for the Impact in Personal Tendencies of the Decrease of Technology Exactly where It is Now Utilized Expected A result of the Loss of Technology Std testN Mean Dev stat First The level of the preparation for each class session. 72 a few. 032 0. 968 zero. 643 zero. 521 How much time you study pertaining to class everyday. * 373 2 . 831 0. 843 3. 870 0. 1000 The amount of time you study for tests and 373 2 . 721 0. 960 5. 608 0. 500 quizzes. * Your attentiveness in class. 5. 372 three or more. 228 1 ) 197 a few. 682 zero. 000 The amount of notes you take. * 372 2 . 769 1 ) 324 a few. 368 0. 001 The caliber of notes you take. 373 3. 078 1 . 302 1 . 153 0. two hundred fifity Your level of participation in the lecture discussions. 372 3. 043 0. 895 0. 927 0. 355 Your overall presence for your class. * 373 2 . 788 0. 823 4. 967 0. 500 The amount of your interaction with all the instructor during class. 73 2 . 976 0. 824 0. 565 0. 572 The amount of discussion with the teacher outside 373 3. 005 0. 846 0. 122 0. 903 of class. The amount you learn from class. * 373 three or more. 231 1 ) 090 four. 084 zero. 000 Your appreciation intended for the instructor’s effort. * 372 installment payments on your 849 1 . 038 2 . 798 zero. 005 The appreciation intended for the importance of the material. 373 2 . 960 0. 925 0. 840 0. 402 Your desire to take additional classes from the particular instructor. * 374 3. 112 0. 981 2 . 213 0. 028 Your wish to take further classes inside the subject matter. 2. 374 3. 104 0. 916 2 . 202 zero. 028 Your entire evaluation with this course. 5. 372 three or more. 290 1 ) 62 a few. 271 zero. 000 Your overall evaluation of this instructor. 372 3. 048 1 . 008 0. 926 0. 355 Note: Concerns with statistically significant dissimilarities between mean responses and an expected neutral response [3. 0] are noticeable with a great “*. The effect of class room technology, Webpage 9 Log of Technology Research Table 2 A comparison of Student Answers Relative to a Neutral Response for the effect on Personal Behavior from the Addition of Technology Where It Is Not Utilized Expected Effect of the Addition of Technology Std testN Mean Dev stat leader The level of the preparation for every class program. * 183 2 . 601 0. 83 6. 112 0. 1000 The amount of period you study for course each day. * 183 2 . 820 0. 822 installment payments on your 967 zero. 003 The amount of time you study intended for exams and quizzes. * 183 2 . 634 zero. 860 your five. 762 zero. 000 The attentiveness in the lecture. * 183 2 . 634 1 . 111 4. 460 0. 500 The quantity of paperwork you take. * 183 2 . 743 1 . 202 2 . 891 0. 004 The quality of records you have. * 183 2 . 557 1 . 179 5. 077 0. 1000 Your amount of participation in class discussions. 2. 183 installment payments on your 814 0. 776 several. 238 0. 001 Your general attendance intended for the class. 2. 183 2 . 689 0. 959 4. 395 zero. 000 The number of your connection with the trainer during course. * 183 2 . 891 0. 41 1 . 996 0. 047 The amount of connection with the trainer outside of school. 183 installment payments on your 962 0. 615 zero. 842 0. 401 The quantity you learn via class. 5. 183 installment payments on your 563 1 . 040 5. 684 0. 000 Your appreciation for the instructor’s effort. 5. 183 installment payments on your 546 1 . 004 six. 113 zero. 000 The appreciation intended for the importance with the material. 2. 183 2 . 590 zero. 890 six. 227 zero. 000 Your desire to consider additional classes from the particular instructor. 5. 182 installment payments on your 747 zero. 929 a few. 668 0. 000 The desire to take additional classes in the topic. 182 2 . 901 0. 848 1 ) 573 0. 117 Your entire evaluation on this course. 5. 182 2 . 571 1 . 031 your five. 605 zero. 00 Your overall evaluation on this instructor. 2. 182 2 . 582 zero. 976 a few. 775 zero. 000 Take note: Questions with statistically significant differences between mean answers and an expected fairly neutral response [3. 0] will be marked with an “*. The impact of classroom technology, Page twelve Journal of Technology Exploration Table a few Comparison of Reactions to Queries about Pupil Behavior pertaining to the Impact from the Loss of Technology Where It is currently Used (Left Set) versus the Addition of Technology in Classes Where It is Not Employed (Right Set) Expected Effect of Expected Effect of the Loss of the Addition of Technology Technology N Indicate Std Dev N Imply Std Dev alpha

The degree of your prep for each school session. * The amount of time you analyze for category each day. The quantity of time you study pertaining to exams and quizzes. The attentiveness in class. * The quantity of notes you take. The standard of notes you take. 2. Your degree of participation in the lecture discussions. * Your overall attendance for your class. The amount of the interaction with all the instructor during class. How much interaction together with the instructor away from class. The quantity you learn coming from class. * Your appreciation for the instructor’s work. Your admiration for the value of the materials. * The desire to take additional classes from the teacher. * The desire to take additional classes in the subject material. * Your general evaluation with this course. 5. 372 373 373 372 372 373 372 373 373 373 373 372 373 374 374 372 3. goal 2 . 83 2 . 72 3. 23 2 . 77 3. ’08 3. 04 2 . 79 2 . 98 3. 01 3. twenty three 2 . eighty-five 2 . 96 3. 14 3. 15 3. 29 0. ninety-seven 0. 84 0. ninety six 1 . 20 1 . thirty-two 1 . 40 0. 90 0. 82 0. 82 0. eighty five 1 . 09 1 . 04 0. 93 0. 98 0. ninety two 1 . summer 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 182 182 182 2 . 62 2 . 82 2 . 63 2 . 63 2 . seventy four 2 . 56 2 . one particular 2 . 69 2 . fifth there’s 89 2 . ninety six 2 . 56 2 . 55 2 . fifty nine 2 . 75 2 . 90 2 . 57 0. 88 0. 82 0. 86 1 . 10 1 . twenty 1 . 18 0. 78 0. ninety six 0. 74 0. sixty one 1 . 04 1 . 00 0. 89 0. 93 0. 85 1 . goal 0. 000 0. 880 0. 298 0. 1000 0. 825 0. 1000 0. 003 0. 205 0. 237 0. 534 0. 500 0. 001 0. 1000 0. 000 0. 012 0. 1000 Your overall evaluation of this trainer. * 372 3. 05 1 . 01 182 2 . 58 zero. 98 0. 000 Be aware: Questions with statistically significant differences in the mean replies between the two groups happen to be marked with an “*. The impact of classroom technology, Page eleven Journal of Technology Exploration REFERENCES Apperson, J., Regulations, E. and Scepansky, J. (2006). The Impact of Demonstration Graphics about Students’ Experience in the Classroom. Pcs and Education, 47(1), 116-126. Atkins-Sayre, T., Hopkins, H., Mohundro, S. and Sayre, W. (1998). Rewards and Liabilities of Presentation Application as an Ancillary Application: Prison or Paradise? Conventional paper presented with the National Communication Association 80 Fourth Annual Conference, New York, NY. Burbules, N. and Callister, T., Jr. (2000). Watch IT: The Promises and Likelihood of New Info Technologies pertaining to Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Christensen, K. (1999).

A Comparison of Student Performance in Man Development Classes Using 3 Different Ways of Delivery: Online, Face-to-Face, and Put together. Ed. G. Dissertation, Division of Education, Drake University. Daniels, M. (1999). Presenting Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint like a First Step. Journal of Processing in Advanced schooling, 10, 42-56. Epper, 3rd there’s r. and Bates, A. (2001). Teaching Teachers How to Use Technology. American Council on Education. Oryx Press. Laurillard, Deb. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Platform for the Effective Make use of Educational Technology (2nd ed.. London: Routledge. Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, L. F., and Abrami, G. C. (2006). Student Recognized Effectiveness of Computer Technology Use in Post-secondary Classes. Computer and Education, 47, 465-489. Mantei, E. (2000). Using Internet Class Notes and PowerPoint in the Physical Geology Address. Journal of College Science Instructing, 29, 301-305. McCombs, M. (2000). Determining the Function of Educational Technology in the Teaching and Learning Method: A Learner-Centered Perspective. The Secretary’s Convention on Educational Technology 2k. www. g. gov/Technology/techconf/2000/mccombs_paper. html code. McFarlane, A. (1997). What Are We and How Did We have Here? In A. McFarlane (ED. ), Information Technology and Authentic Learning: Knowing the Potential of Computers in the Major Classroom. London, uk, England: Routledge. Roblyer, Meters. (2003). Developing Educational Technology into Instructing. (3rd education. ) Uppr Saddle Lake, NJ: Merrill Prentice Corridor. Witcher, A., Onwuegbuzie, A., Collins, E., Filer, T., Wiedmaier, C., and Moore, C. Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective School Teachers.

JOSHUA Document Duplication Service: IMPOTENCE 482517. The impact of class room technology, Web page 12 Journal of Technology Research APPENDIX Demographic Information for Undergraduate Students inside the Sample Technology = Technology Used, Effect of the A shortage of Technology Zero Technology sama dengan Technology Certainly not Used, Influence of the Addition of Technology Major for Undergraduate Pupils in Sample Technology Not any Technology (N = 329) (N sama dengan 155) Accounting 19% 15% Economics Fund Health Support Administration Supervision Marketing Business Undeclared Different ” nonbusiness 5% 8% 8% 26% 13% 14% 7% 5% 13% 8% 23% 8% 18% 10%

Year pertaining to Undergraduate Learners in Sample Technology Simply no Technology (N = 329) (N sama dengan 155) Freshman 18% 3% Sophomore Jr . Senior 22% 32% 28% 52% 23% 22%? two tests for differences in the distribution of majors between the two groups and for differences in the division of undergraduate years would not reject the null hypothesis.

It was presumed there were no significant differences in the circulation of undergrad majors or perhaps in the distribution of college students in terms of academics progress when you compare the two teams. Technology (N = 329) Female Male Student sexuality 40% 60% No Technology (N = 155) Girl Male 49% 51% A test of proportions recommended no significant difference in the amount of female to guy students when you compare the two organizations included in this examine. The impact of classroom technology, Page 13