The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes
Abstract
The author argues that to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes, the quality of technology use—how, and what, technology is used—is a more significant factor than the quantity of technology use—how much technology is used. This argument was exemplified by an empirical study that used both angles to examine the association between technology use and student outcomes. When only the quantity of technology use was examined, no significant association was observed. However, when the quality of technology was examined by investigating the specific types of technology uses, a significant association was identified between technology use and all student outcomes. Furthermore, different types of technology use showed different influences on specific student outcomes. General technology uses were positively associated with student technology proficiency, while subject‐specific technology uses were negatively associated with student technology proficiency. Social‐communication technology uses were significantly positively associated with developmental outcomes such as self‐esteem and positive attitude towards school. Entertainment/exploration technology use showed significant positive association with student learning habits. None of these technology uses had significant influence on student academic outcome. Specific suggestions for integrating technology into schools and future research were provided.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Generation Z: Technology and Social Interest
Turner, A. (2015) · The Journal of Individual Psychology · doi:10.1353/jip.2015.0021 · Cited by 958
Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. S. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.021 · Cited by 331
Blended Project Based Learning: Metacognitive Awareness of Biology Education New Students
Husamah, H. (2015) · Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) · doi:10.11591/edulearn.v9i4.2121 · Cited by 70
The influence of the use of technology on student outcomes in a blended learning context
López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Argente-Linares, E. (2013) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9303-8 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Lei, J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04-15
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 455-472
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2145328707
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00961.x
- The paper
- Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00961.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.