dc.contributor.author	Lawson, Bradford Lee
dc.coverage.spatial	Central and North America -- United States -- Georgia	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	2008-2015	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2015-12-18T15:01:09Z
dc.date.available	2015-12-18T15:01:09Z
dc.date.issued	2015-12
dc.identifier.other	707CE860-5E16-4284-8D77-F73331736E4F
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/2026
dc.description.abstract	The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of integrating educational technology into large rural, small rural and small non-rural public high schools in Georgia. The researcher also sought to determine if a correlation existed between principals' perception of technology and student achievement. Math pass rates on the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) in 2008 and 2010 were used to measure achievement. School groups were given a technology score based on a Technology Inventory. Principal perceptions were measured using a Technology Integration Survey. A causal-comparative research design was used in this study. Repeated-measures ANOVA were used to compare the math pass rates of large rural, small rural and small non-rural public schools. An independent-samples t test was used to compare mean math pass rates of small schools and small non-rural schools. Three hypotheses were proposed to examine the effects of technology integration on math pass rates on the GHSGT. None of the hypotheses were supported; all three groups' mean pass rates decreased. There was a statistically significant decline in math pass rates for large rural schools, M = -5.19, SD = 8.75, Wilks' Lambda = .74, F(1,123) = 45.53, p < .001. There was not a significant decline in math pass rates for small rural schools, M = -1.67, SD = 11.34, Wilks' Lambda = .98, F(1,35) = .78, p = .38. There was not a significant difference in math pass rates between small public schools (M = -1.71, SD = 5.56) and small public rural schools (M = -1.67, SD = 11.34); t (46) = .01, p = .99. There was no correlation found between principal's perception of technology and 2010 GHSGT math pass rates, r = -.12, n = 22, p = .58.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION 1 -- Statement of the Problem 5 -- Conceptual Framework for the Study 7 -- Purpose of the Study 11 -- Research Questions 12 -- Definition of Terms 13 -- Methodology 14 -- Significance of Study 15 -- Limitations of Study 16 -- Organization of Study 17 -- Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW 19 -- Introduction 19 -- History of Educationl Technology 20 -- 21st Century Schools 23 -- The Effect of School Size and Location on Technology Availability -- and Utilization 24 -- Technology and Student Achievement 26 -- Expenditures on Technology and Student Achievement 32 -- Student Access to Technology and Achievement 33 -- Interactive Whiteboards and Student Achievement 35 -- Georgia Student Achievement and Technology 36 -- Rural Education and the State of Georgia 39 -- Educational Leader's Impact on Technology Integration and Student -- Achievement 40 -- Summary 41 -- Chapter III: METHODOLOGY 44 -- Introduction 44 -- Research Design 47 -- Validity and Reliability 47 -- Limitations of Study 48 -- Setting and Participants 48 -- Instrumentation 50 -- Annual School Technology Inventory Survey 50 -- Technology Integration Survey 51 -- Achievement Measure 52 -- Ethical Considerations 52 -- Procedures 53 -- School Data 53 -- Principal Data 53 -- Data Analysis 54 -- Summary 55 -- Chapter IV: RESULTS 56 -- Introduction 56 -- Instrumentation 56 -- Data Collection Procedures 57 -- Sample 60 -- Quantitative Data Analysis and Results 61 -- Research Question 1: Growth for Large Public Rural Schools 62 -- Research Question 2: Growth for Small Public Rural Schools 63 -- Research Question 3: Difference in Small and Small Non-Rural 63 -- Research Question 4: Principal's Perception of Technology 64 -- Summary 66 -- Chapter V: Findings and Conclusions 68 -- Purpose of Study 67 -- Related Literature 69 -- Methodology 77 -- Data Analysis 81 -- Summary of Findings 82 -- Implications 86 -- Limitations of the Study 88 -- Recommendations for Further Research 88 -- Conclusions 89 -- REFERENCES 93 -- APPENDICES -- Appendix A: Technology Inventory Survey 108 -- Appendix B: Technology Integration Survey 110 -- Appendix C: Institutional Review Board Protocol Exemption Report 113	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Educational Leadership	en_US
dc.subject	Educational technology	en_US
dc.subject	Rural schools	en_US
dc.subject	Georgia High School Graduation Test	en_US
dc.title	Technology Integration in Rural and Small Schools: Does It Make a Difference?	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Pate, James L.
dc.description.committee	Gibson, Nicole M.
dc.description.committee	Wiley, Ellen W.
dc.description.committee	Truby, William F.
dc.description.degree	Ed.D.	en_US
dc.description.major	Educational Leadership	en_US