You are here:

Using Laptop Technology To Improve Mathematical Achievement Rates: A Quasi-Experimental Study

, Auburn City Schools, United States

JCMST Volume 37, Number 3, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


The specific problem that initiated this study was a continually high percentage of students not passing the mathematics section of the state mandated end of course assessment. The purpose of this study centered on determining whether or not laptop interventions, directed towards increasing student success on high stakes standardized assessments (EOC), improved student proficiency on the mathematics section of the EOC. The research question investigated the relationship between learning outcomes among students receiving mathematics instruction through the Google Chromebook™ notebook and those students receiving traditional methods of mathematical instruction, as measured by the mean posttest scores on the end of course assessment. The foundation for this study encompassed a quantitative quasi-experimental design guided by ANCOVA, using a pretest and a posttest design. Data collection originated from four different ninth grade classes in a southeastern Georgia high school. The results of the study revealed instructional strategies infused with technology did not increase student proficiency scores on the EOC. Further analysis into gains in student learning objectives revealed laptop use positively affected the socioeconomically disadvantaged student subgroup. The largest significant gains in the student learning objectives occurred among the economically disadvantaged subgroup of students. Keywords: education, technology, mathematics,


Brown, R. (2018). Using Laptop Technology To Improve Mathematical Achievement Rates: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(3), 217-238. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition of education 2011. NCES 2011-033. National Center for Education Statistics.
  2. Barshay, J. (2013, December). Top US students fare poorly in international PISA test scores, Shanghai tops the world, Finland slips. The Hechinger Report,, 12-14.
  3. Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), n1.
  4. Borg, J. R., Borg, M. O., & Stranahan, H. A. (2012). Closing the achievement gap between high-poverty schools and low-poverty schools. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 5, 1.
  5. Broussard, J., Hebert, D., Welch, B., & VanMetre, S. (2014). Teaching Today for Tomorrow: A Case Study of One High School’s 1:1 Computer Adoption. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(4), 37-45.
  6. S. (2012). What Can We Learn about the US Education System from International Comparisons?.
  7. Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using Technology to Support At-Risk Students’ Learning. Alliance for Excellent Education. Washington, DC.
  8. Devlin, T., Feldhaus, C., & Bentrem, K. (2013). The Evolving Classroom: A Study of Traditional and Technology-Based Instruction in a STEM Classroom. Journal Of Technology Education, 25(1), 34-54.
  9. Gates, B. (2005, February). National Education Summit on High Schools. Speech presented at the National Education Summit, Washington, DC.
  10. Georgia Department of Education (2012). SLO operations manual student learning objectives. Atlanta, GA.
  11. Georgia Department of Education (2012). Student learning objectives as measures of educator effectiveness. Atlanta, GA.
  12. Context. First Look at PISA 2012. NCES 2014-024. National Center For Education Statistics,
  13. Kennedy, M. (2013). Today’s learning spaces. American School & University, 85(7), 30.
  14. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action: RL33434. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1-31.
  15. Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007, December). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614. .
  16. Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 39(4), 417-430.
  17. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the algebra project . Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
  18. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP). U. S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
  19. Negroponte , N. (2013, August 26). Learning Learning [Video file]. Retrieved from The Phoenix Lecture series website:
  20. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality and Quantity, 39(3), 267-295. Doi:
  21. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). New approach needed to deliver on technology’s potential in schools. OECD. Paris, France.
  22. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). PISA 2012 results. OECD. Paris, France.
  23. Rich, M. (2015, October 28). Nationwide Test Shows Dip in Students’ Math Abilities.. The New York Times, P. A12.
  24. Robinson, K. (2010, Might ). Bring on the learning revolution [Video file]. Retrieved from http://Robinson, K. (2010). Bring on the learning revolution.
  25. Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring Research [University of Phoenix Custom Edition eBook]. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, website.
  26. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
  27. Silvernail, D. L., Pinkham, C., Wintle, S., Walker, L., & Bartlett, C. (2011). A middle school one-to-one laptop program: The Maine experience. Maine Learning Technology Initiative. U of S. Maine.
  28. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.
  29. Wambach, C. (2006). From Revolutionary to Evolutionary: 10 Years of 1-to- 1 Computing: Laptop Initiatives Are Now a Decade Old. Once a Point
  30. U.S. Department of Education (2011). Winning the education future. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact