Digital learning in K12: putting teacher professional identity on the line

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12:
PUTTING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY ON the LINE
by
Shea-Alison Rose Thompson

_____________________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Shea-Alison Rose Thompson

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 ii

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
—William Butler Yeats

Come then, and let us pass a leisure hour in storytelling, and our story shall be the education of
our heroes.
—Plato

All I needed was a steady table and a typewriter…a marble-topped bedroom washstand table
made a good place; the dining-room table between meals was also suitable.

—Agatha Christie

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 iii

Dedication
To anyone who must find strength
to hold on by a thread to dreams
on wind-stricken terrain
and in isolation

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 iv

Acknowledgements: “Sulle Belle Montagne”
Mosaic, tapestry, call it what you will, my gosh, I call it a mountain
I climbed with self-reliance,
hands reaching out to me from clouds
Michelle, beautiful lady, my gosh, can you see me now,
from your heavenly perch?
My mother who gave birth—1972—to me
so I could fulfill my earthly purpose, my spiritual destiny like
Miss Savery did with such grace, you are still so golden and so bright—1979—
a first-grade teacher, I’m so lucky you were mine.
Poppy, my father who gave me wings to fly, and I sang, the wind beneath my wings—1990—
on my first journey to USC
You kept listening when I was discouraged,
countless hours of your kind love that many daughters only dream of
Shane you are holding me—since 2000—and never letting go
through all these seasons in a farming town, promising me there’s blooms beneath the snow.
Maverick—2004—nothing I do matters unless it makes your life better, more worthwhile
Aunt Pam—this is for you—the tough old bird kind of grit I know you knew I’ve got
and Grandma, and Thelma, and Uncle Stew—
I keep you in my heart, your pictures surrounding me on the shelves near my computer desks.
Amanda Kizer, you are a rock, steady and unmoving—when the rain poured on us you kept
believing…the long cold days we kept climbing, heavy backpacks, low at times, the peak not yet
visible.
Herb Payan, you are a sounding board, a true warrior of faith and of hope.
Dr. Holly Ferguson and Dr. Daniel Chatham, you lifted me up
with your direction and encouragement when I didn’t know where to stand on the steep incline.
And then
there were seven willing faces at base camp, uncertain but wanting to assist:
My study participants to whom I am so grateful, may their voices in this story be heard.
Also, to my dissertation committee—thank you for the time you gave so I could share this work:
Dr. Anthony Maddox, who encouraged creative thinking, and Dr. Velina Houston and Dr.
Francesca Italiano who taught me the value and power of internal culture…
I enthusiastically imagine where I might soar, my little hands reaching now from this peak
to the stars—those Keats’ star-filled skies, one man against the world of vast possibility,
the kind of soaring that keeps you dreaming in spite of fear
the kind that makes you know your words can light dark corners,
those places that need to change to bring greater light to teaching mastery, to life.
I acknowledge anyone and everyone who gave even one minute toward my project completion—
including:
Members of the selection committee, the personnel in the IRB office who reviewed and said yes
to my plan, my fellow graduating class and all of the multiple discussions we had, and the
weariness we shared to keep one foot going in front of the other, positioning ourselves,
fighting on with each step toward—2018—
and thank you, Tammy, at Snakebite restaurant who said it all works out in the end,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 v

and to Lise, thank you for Saturday luncheons, and most notably, for our long talks about what it
means to teach,
the future’s still bright, my friend.
I acknowledge anyone and everyone who gave me doorways to walk through, trials to overcome,
rainbow memories, and the opportunities to learn that—
I can do hard things.

Sadie, are you there—out in the crowd today?
Are you ready, little sister—for our long-awaited picture?
Standing together, you’re always with me heart in heart,
forever and ever.

And now, the chapters unfold…

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 vi

Table of Contents
Epigraph ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements: “Sulle Belle Montagne” iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x

Chapter One: Teachers and the Internet 1
The Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 5
Organizational Performance Goal 7
Related Literature 13
Online Learning 13
Professional Development 16
Professional Identity 18
Importance of an Innovation at This School Site 20
Description of Stakeholder Groups at This School Site 24
Stakeholder Performance Goals 25
Stakeholder Group for the Study 26
Purpose of This Innovation Project: Three Research Questions 27
Gap Analysis Research Questions 28
Conceptual and Methodological Framework Overview 28

Chapter Two: A Literature Review—Teachers and Digital Learning 30
General Literature Related to the Problem of Practice 30
Teachers Meeting 21
st
Century Demands 30
Teachers Making Changes in Instructional Delivery 32
Teachers Not Integrating Technology 34
Stakeholder Assumed Influences in Knowledge and Motivation,
and the Problem of Practice 35
Knowledge and Skills 35
Motivation 41
Stakeholder Assumed Influences in Organization,
and the Problem of Practice 45
Organization 45
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organizational Context 52
Summary 54

Chapter Three: Methodology—Investigating the Teachers’ World 56
Purpose of the Project 56
Conceptual and Methodological Approach 56
Gap Analysis Research Questions 58

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 vii

The Study Participants 58
Stakeholder Assumed Influences in Knowledge, Motivation,
and Organization 61
Assumed Knowledge Influences 63
Assumed Motivation Influences 69
Assumed Organization Influences 71
The Study 75
Data Collection and Instrumentation 82
Data Analysis 87
Credibility and Trustworthiness 94
Ethics 98
Assumptions 103
Limitations 104
Delimitations 106
Summary 108

Chapter Four: Results and Findings—The Teachers’ Voices 109
Setting 109
Participating Stakeholders 109
Survey Results 110
Findings 114
Pre- and Post- Innovation 175
Discussion 175
Summary 176

Chapter Five: Solutions and Recommendations—Helping Teachers and the
Organization Flourish 177
Solutions and Recommendations to Increase Blended Learning 177
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation 197
Summary 221
Strengths and Weaknesses of Approach 222
Future Research 223
Conclusion 225

References 227

Appendices 244
Appendix A: Email to Stakeholders 244
Appendix B: IRB Informed Consent Form 245
Appendix C: Stage One Survey Protocol 247
Appendix D: Stage Two PD Training Protocol 249
Appendix E: Stage Three Interview Protocol 252
Appendix F: Stage Four Focus Group Protocol 254
Appendix G: Evaluation Tool Level 2 and Level 1 256
Appendix H: Evaluation Tool Post- Implementation 259

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 25

Table 2: Summary of Sources about Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences 62

Table 3: Stakeholder Knowledge Influences and Knowledge Types 63

Table 4: Stakeholder Motivational Influences 69

Table 5: Stakeholder Organizational Influences 72

Table 6: Validated Stakeholder Assumed Influences in KMO in Finding #1 116

Table 7: Validated Stakeholder Assumed Influences in KMO in Finding #2 142

Table 8: Validated Stakeholder Assumed Influences in KMO in Finding #3 161

Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 178

Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 185

Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 191

Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 199

Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers 202

Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors 204

Table 15: Components of Learning for the Program 211

Table 16: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 213

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 ix

List of Figures

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework for Teacher Integration of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) 53

Figure 2: Gap Analysis Process 57

Figure 3: The New World Kirkpatrick Model 198

Figure 4: Data Analysis and Reporting for the Training Program 219

Figure 5: Dashboard Data Report on Projected Actual Performance
in Critical Behaviors 221

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 x

Abstract
Teachers in the 21
st
century continue to teach with little change to pedagogy, practice, or
professional identity. Professional development (PD) remains largely ineffective as a tool for
promoting instructional change or new identity formation. Teachers at Senior High School X
reflect a significant problem of practice in education: reduced inclination to use information and
communication technologies (ICT) in the classroom. This dissertation study was a contribution
to existing research on teacher use of the Internet in instruction, and identity transformation. The
framework for the study addressed stakeholder assumed influences in knowledge, motivation,
and organizational barriers (KMO) that impacted the performance goal of technology-infused
instruction. The study was wholly qualitative and the researcher collected data at the school site.
Research findings answered the three original research questions: how KMO impacted teacher
use of ICT, specifically blended learning, how PD impacted teacher professional identity, and
whether innovative delivery of PD could impact teacher inclination to use ICT in the classroom.
The three research findings, supported by themes, were: teachers were divided internally,
externally, individually, and collectively in terms of KMO barriers, PD impacted professional
identity by strengthening teachers as educators if the PD was relevant to their practice, and
innovative PD could be a positive experience. Findings suggested that teachers are willing to
change. Teacher stakeholders need to be the mouthpiece and leaders of organizational change
that promotes meaningful technology-infused instruction. Implications for the field are that
teachers need more support, resources, and access, and must possess a strong voice to be at the
forefront of (a) identity transformation, and (b) inclusion of blended learning.
Key terms: traditional instructional model, online learning, blended learning, digital learning,
professional development, teacher professional identity
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 1

CHAPTER ONE: TEACHERS AND THE INTERNET
The Problem of Practice
The disconnect: literal, physical, spiritual, organizational, and technological disconnect.
Without teachers, K12 does not exist, and without teacher drive to actualize change, classroom
dynamics remain stagnant. Teachers are at the center of discordant thinking about what needs to
happen in classrooms.
How students learn matters. The way teachers think about the purpose of education, and their
expectations for students in terms of knowledge and ability, is supremely significant. Media and
technology impact how young people learn today, how they relate to the world, and how they
form relationships; schooling for this generation is different than in the past (Wagner, 2014).
However, online learning is not an assumed practitioner value. Online learning delivery differs
from its counterpart, traditional coursework (Allen & Seaman, 2013). To illustrate, teachers of
this century, and more poignantly of this decade, must now conceptualize digital literacy
terminology as an augmentation to literacy skills learned face-to-face (Pilgrim & Martinez,
2015). Terms like online or blended learning lack consistent definitions among practitioners
who may believe that there is a difference between “instructor-transmitted” (instruction delivered
through technology) and “instructor-mediated” (instruction delivered through the educator)
(Margulieux, Bujak, McCracken, & Majerich, 2014). Fragmentation arises regarding which
instructional settings are sound. A top criticism of online learning is that instructors may not be
a visible part of the experience. This sharply contrasts the face-to-face setting where teachers are
visible every day. Furthermore, educational technology is not necessarily changing the way
teachers teach (Herold, 2015). Many instructional changes have occurred since the late
nineteenth century, but relatively few transformations regarding how teachers teach—the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 2

continuity of classroom practice—have occurred, in spite educational reform (Cuban, 2013). In
the 19
th
century, the purpose of schools was to prepare children in the “three r’s”—the reading,
writing, and arithmetic needed to work in factories. The purpose of schools today relates to a
world-wide culture of increased communication and transportation (Houston, 2008).
Information and communication technologies (ICT) (the Internet and other digital
communication modes) is widespread globally, yet pedagogy has not changed significantly
(Murthy, Iyer, & Warriem, 2015). Think about this striking reality, this red flag warning:
teaching practice has not changed in 200 years. How is this possible? New settings are
evolving, and the gap between online and on-campus sectors regarding the worth of online
education is narrowing, but not fast enough. With that in mind, this dissertation addresses a
salient and troubling feature of K12 learning: lack-of-change. Teacher disinclination to
integrate technology is a problem because “school” is no longer solely a brick-and-mortar
experience. Moreover, professional development (PD) does not guarantee teachers will
eliminate habits to include new teaching strategies or models that include ICT. Teacher
professional identity must grow to meet the demands of the digital age.
Teacher professional identity is on-the-line because the traditional classroom K12 teacher is,
for the most part, just that—a traditional instructional model educator. Educational settings are
changing, but defining and categorizing those settings remains a challenge for practitioners and
scholars. Part of the problem of practice involves clarifying the worth of technology in an
educator’s world. “Technology” is a broad term that refers to many advancements, tools, uses,
learning modalities, and purposes, inside and outside of educational practice. In addition,
specific terms such as “hybrid”, “blended”, “flipped”, and inverted are not the same instructional
settings, and these terms might be used interchangeably in online learning (Margulieux et al.,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 3

2014). Online learning can also be thought of as an alternative to or substitute for face-to-face
settings, and blended learning can be defined as a combination of online and face-to-face
instruction (U. S. Department of Education, 2010). In recent decades, teaching approaches have
shifted positively, to emphasize the student over the teacher, in terms of instructional delivery.
Focusing on students should mean the eradication of monotony at the front of the room, one
“teacher” directing a group of learners who sit in rows of desks that face forward, but, ironically,
this scenario still describes many classroom arrangements in schools all over the nation.
According to Delgado, Wardlow, McKnight, and O’Malley (2015), a flipped classroom is
student-centered, not teacher-centered, which supports change from the traditional model, where
students acquire content knowledge outside of the classroom setting. Therefore, blended
learning can challenge the status quo, but where does this shift include development of new
teacher identity related to technology-infused instruction? Have teachers really changed? Yes,
blended learning can be referred to as a hybrid where teachers use digital technology in a
traditional or flipped classroom, but blended learning does not mean a teacher has internalized
appropriate technology usage and made it central to the educational purpose. Concerns about
online learning include student accountability—and, most importantly, student learning. In
short, technology-infused practice is a gray area related to definition, purpose, and learning.
Technology-infused educational practice is a relatively new endeavor for practitioners.
Defining what education should be depends on discovering what takes place when education
really occurs; doing so means understanding how the development of desired powers occurs, that
can then direct subsequent efforts (Dewey, 2008). Practitioners disagree about the value and
worth of teaching with technology (Kemp et al., 2014). In fact, some educators repudiate the
prospect of teaching successfully with the Internet. Educators may not believe that technology is
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 4

necessary to teach effectively (Aflalo, 2014). National data on the availability and use of
educational technology among public school teachers revealed that 80 percent of teachers used
software for student record-keeping, and 94 percent of teachers used the Internet frequently;
however, for instruction, only 61 percent of teachers claimed to be making “effective” use of
educational technology. Furthermore, discrepancies exist between low and high poverty schools
where technology impacts instruction less regarding the latter (U. S. Department of Education,
2009). Misalignment exists between teacher use of technology and national expectations.
According to the National Education Technology Plan of the United States, entitled, “Future
Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education,” equity and active use of
technology are essential components of transforming learning experiences so learning can occur
all the time. This plan supports Title IV A, “Activities to Support the Effective Use of
Technology” in “Every Student Succeeds Act” initiated by Congress in 2015 (U. S. Department
of Education, 2016b). What is effective use of technology? Digital classroom materials can
range from the use of the Portable Document Formats (PDF) to curriculum that is Web-based,
and the shift from print to digital text or online learning forums that include on-demand supports
and custom features, requires redesign (Puttick, Drayton, & Karp, 2015). Who does the
redesigning? Educators. Teachers are responsible for integrating technology, but not all
teachers are committed to technology-infused practice that includes specific educational
approaches such as blended learning, and specific technologies such as learning management
system (LMS) platforms and online communication. A cacophony in the school building results:
teacher practitioners do not agree on what needs to happen in their classrooms or they may
experience a broken pathway toward change. District X was an example of this disharmony
despite penned goals that indicated shared vision.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 5

Organizational Context and Mission
District X (name changed) is a school district in a small rural city in the Intermountain West.
1

According to the U. S. Census for the surrounding community in 2015, only 25 percent of
community members in County X hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, approximately 90 percent
of the population is classified as white, and approximately 10 percent of the population was
classified as Hispanic or Latino. The breakdown of individuals by race closely mirrored current
percentages at the state level. County X had a total reported population of 27,021
(U. S. Department of Commerce, 2015).
2
District X’s Enrollment Summary for September 2015
accounted for a total of 5,447 students. The breakdown by gender was 2,755 male students and
2,692 female students. Student ethnicity data revealed that District X services 4,743 “white”
students, 540 “Hispanic or Latino” students, and the remaining 164 students combined were
identified as “other races”. These “other races” were labeled as “American Indian” or “Alaskan
Native”, “Asian”, “Black/African-American”, and “Native Hawaiian” or “Other Pacific
Islander”. Other races were labeled as being two or more races not Hispanic or Latino, or were
unclassified.
3
District X serviced students at six elementary schools, one middle school, the high
school, and an alternative high school.
At the onset of this dissertation project, 72 teachers worked at Senior High School X (name
changed), teaching students in grades 9-12.
4
Academic programs in addition to regular
education classes included Special Education and Resource, Freshman Academy, English as a
Second Language Program, advanced placement in several core subjects, and dual enrollment

1
The school district name is changed to maintain anonymity.
2
Actual county is not named to maintain anonymity.
3
Source is school district website. School district website and URL are omitted from this dissertation to maintain
anonymity of location and subjects.
4
The high school name is changed to maintain anonymity.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 6

courses through three institutions of higher learning. Students also completed classes through a
virtual state-run school (an online school). Senior High School X had implemented one main
incentive program, Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) for campus harmony and
social well-being. (D. Freeman, personal communication, September 15, 2015).
5
Teachers at
the high school were responsible for student well-being and safety, instructional planning and
assessment, and alignment to Common Core State Standards (CCSS). District and school
leaders expect teachers to uphold the district mission and vision. The district had only one
fulltime technology coach for secondary instruction in the 2016-2017 school year.
District X’s mission statement was posted on the district website. The mission statement
indicated that the district had a priority of delivering the highest quality education possible to
each student.
6
District X’s vision stated that this community is focused on student learning that
can build character, foster informed and productive citizenship, and prepare students for success
in college and other post-secondary endeavors.
7
Senior High School X has simplified and
adopted the district’s vision statement schoolwide, and has emphasized the Common Core
declaration that “every student will be college or career ready.” This motto was required as part
of each faculty member’s email signature (Y. Trudy, personal communication, September 15,
2015). In line with Common Core, to prepare students for quality workforce experiences and
high stakes competition in professional settings, students must have a strong sense of global
awareness, the ability to communicate effectively and purposefully, and certain skills (Florian &
Zimmerman, 2015). Teachers who are not using technology-infused instruction may not be
addressing the realities of a global economy reflected in national educational goals; the

5
All personal communication in this document uses pseudonyms for first initials and last names.
6
Source is school district website. URL is not provided to maintain anonymity.
7
Source is school district website. URL is not provided to maintain anonymity.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 7

workforce of today necessitates advanced technological skill development among students to
ensure that they are communicatively competent and competitive in digital arenas. National
expectations are that students must be prepared for global competitiveness; additionally,
technology builds 21
st
century skills, and technology can transform teaching (U. S. Department
of Education, 2016c). The needs and powers of students drive initiative in growth (Dewey,
2008). Students in District X needed to be fully equipped to advance in a digital age. Teachers
were the ones who could make this happen—but teachers make choices based on what they
know, what they value, and what they can access. Scholars in teacher education have been
preoccupied with understanding those factors and what helps teachers learn to teach for over a
century (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). Teachers are at the heart of instructional direction.
Organizational Performance Goal
A “Target” Goal
The organizational performance goal involved PD training relevant to technology use among
teachers, but defining the actual goal was nebulous and depended on whom was asked. District
level personnel stated that PD could increase classroom use of technology that further supports
compliance to Common Core federal and state mandates, the district’s primary emphasis (M.
Seewell, personal communication, April 11, 2016). To district leaders, technology in instruction
was regarded as a “target,” not a prominent organizational goal. In fact, the superintendent did
not verbally acknowledge that the district even had a real or valid goal that addressed technology
(L. Sherry, personal communication, February 4, 2016). The goal in this dissertation project,
that aligned with this articulated district vision, was that by May 2017 the number of teachers at
the high school who use ICT meaningfully in instruction would double and their use of ICT in
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 8

the classroom would be assessed through lesson planning each trimester. Teachers who met this
goal would demonstrate accountability and compliance to state expectations.
Accountability
Professional accountability (Stecher & Kirby, 2004) regarding technology integration and
efforts to meet the target goal, was nebulous. According to the district’s Budget Expenditures
for 2015-2016, proposed funding for “Instruction-Related Technology Programs” is
$374,330.69.
8
The technology budget was not transparent to teachers. No raw data existed to
show how the district or high school was meeting the current performance goal involving
technology training, teacher effectiveness, or instructional improvement addressing both
Common Core and technology-infused instruction. District leadership was considering the
reduction of representation of various stakeholder groups who form the Leadership District
Team. Likely, a newly formed team will revisit the goal but at the time of this dissertation study,
no information from district leaders suggested that the performance goal would remain intact or
would be modified. The Director of Elementary Education stated that the technology goal would
not be addressed for yet another year because the district’s primary concern was to develop
strong foundations for CCSS assessment that would later link to increased technology use (M.
Seewell, personal communication, April 11, 2016). Therefore, measurement of the goal was not
likely to occur any time soon.
The State Department of Education (for this state) indicated on its website that every high
school student will be able to learn in a 21
st
century classroom equipped with wireless capability.
The state’s goal of wireless connectivity allows students to move from using technology as a
“substitute” to instruction into a more worthwhile endeavor by redefining the classroom

8
Source is school district website. URL is not provided to maintain anonymity.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 9

experience that allows for new learning and teaching practices that were not available before.
9

Educational accountability has taken a new turn in the 21
st
century by holding teachers
accountable for student learning (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The Director of Elementary
Education echoed these state expectations of technology-infused practice that move beyond
technology use as mere substitution. Part of the performance goal at District X is the
Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model. However, training
modules to help teachers focus on technology learning were not yet devised (M. Seewell,
personal communication, April 11, 2016). District X did not have a practicable plan and was not
directly held accountable for creating wireless classrooms with ample technological access.
The “dance” between implementation of Common Core and integration of technology
remained organizationally abstruse, with no real answers. Common Core goals included raising
the bar for learning standards and ensuring that students can compete in the economy (U. S.
Department of Education, 2016a). According to the current Continuous Improvement Plan, by
May 2017 district instructional coaches would develop specific training modules based on
implementation of the Idaho Core Standards and incorporating digital media and technology into
general education curricula.
10
The Leadership District Team, with input from administrators,
board members, teachers, support, staff, parents, and students, devised this goal. The previous
year’s goal was to support student learning through the increased use of technology integration in
the classroom by 25 percent as measured by lesson plan submissions, surveys, and both
formal/informal walkthroughs. The Director of Elementary Education stated informally that this
former goal was too difficult to measure, so it was omitted. Additionally, the superintendent had

9
Source is the school district’s State Department of Education website. Name and URL are not provided to
maintain anonymity.
10
Source is school district website. URL is not provided to maintain anonymity.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 10

voiced that all instructional efforts should be geared toward improved Common Core alignment,
yet teachers collectively did not gravitate toward nor initiate new training, and usually the same
“repeat” teachers volunteered for leadership premiums in a variety of school-based needs that
generated those small yearly stipends (L. Sherry, personal communication, February 4, 2016). A
disparity existed between the large sum of state funding designated for technology related to
instruction, and district efforts to encourage technology-infused instruction in the classroom—in
a real life-changing way.
Performance Status—Failure
To summarize, District X had a goal of meeting the needs of all learners. Yet many teachers
and students were not using technological tools—or even their own personal devices—regularly,
during classroom instruction. In fact, at the end of this project the school board at District X
passed a policy for the 2017-2018 school year banning all cell phone use in classrooms
districtwide. The current principal at Senior High School X informed his faculty that he would
allow cell phone use if it was part of classroom instruction. On the first day back to school, he
asked teachers to send him their future technology-integrated lesson plans so that he would have
documentation if district level personnel visited classrooms and saw students using cell phones.
The principal also told the faculty that the district wanted teachers to be “paperless” and that all
teachers would need to bring their school-provided iPads to meetings. Few teachers brought
iPads with them, and the district was sending mixed messages (B. Lee, personal communication,
August 25, 2017). Students at District X and specifically at Senior High School X, as learners of
the 21
st
century in a state that expressed the value of teaching with the Internet, needed more
exposure and access to ICT that might increase academic performance and productivity. The
problem warranted investigation of current instructional practices that may not have been
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 11

preparing students for common or high-stakes performance assessments or real-world positions
that require digital skills. A school may have 21
st
century tools but not 21
st
century learning
(Couros, 2015). According to Geer and Sweeney (2012), students today generationally
experience a change in lifestyle because of increased communication options; students live in a
“visual world.” Communication that influences interpersonal relationships is increasingly online
(Sant & Catania, 2014). District X’s mission indicated an equal quality education for all
students.
11
Digital learning should be a viable, prominent option for students (Geer & Sweeney,
2012). The consequences for not solving the problem of reduced technology integration in
instruction were lack of change, lack of progression, and continued emphasis on the traditional
classroom model, which was a disadvantage to students who need a range of skill sets to be
competitive nationally and globally.
Failure to meet the goal of increased technology use in instruction impacted students
negatively. According to Geer and Sweeney (2012), students today live in a world saturated
with visual stimuli and heavy reliance upon social networking. In short, they are immersed in an
information age. Educational institutions need to be prepared for a global economy (Florian &
Zimmerman, 2015). Students’ voices must be included in 21
st
century pedagogical approaches
(Couros, 2015). Because District X did not spotlight technology-infused instruction as a
platform for student engagement, District X risked anchoring educational efforts in a non-
progressive climate that impeded progress toward 21
st
century demands. Essentially, District X
was out of compliance with state mandates.
District X did acknowledge a disparity between the PD goal that implied increased teacher
usage of technological tools and the reality that many teachers were not using those tools, or that

11
Source is school district website. URL is not provided to maintain anonymity.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 12

they did not know how to use those tools to individualize to their subject areas/lesson plans.
Often teachers do not know how to begin with technology (Couros, 2015). The district
technology coach stated that her main role was to get teachers to use the tools (including
Microsoft Office 365 and the classroom SMART Board) that were readily accessible. She also
identified blended learning as a current model in science classrooms where teachers used iPads
in conjunction with direct instruction. The technology coach echoed District X’s goal (although
it was not directly stated by the district) of increasing student usage of technology (emails,
typing, research, iPads) at the secondary level through instructional practice that would compel
both teachers and students to communicate digitally. The coach’s efforts centered on
technological tools primarily, and she provided PD in smaller circles based on the tools and
programs the district has chosen for classrooms (L. Pallor, personal communication, August 29,
2016). District X had an obligation to service all students as appropriately and robustly as
possible, and was funding “technology” but was failing in terms of increased teacher use of
technology-infused instruction. Progression was slow.
District X Efforts
District X began providing more opportunities for teachers to develop technological skills
over a two-year period. This included incentives for reporting increased use of technology
through earning professional development college credits and attending summer outings such as
the upcoming Technology Bootcamp 2017. District X has stated that teachers need to “infuse
21
st
century skills that will prepare students for life in a technological society” (K. Stokes,
personal communication, February 14, 2017). Each school year, District X emails from the
technology department became more fruitful in terms of technological devices, tools, and
programs that included the use of CPS clickers, QR codes, Splashtop, Reflector, Skype Field
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 13

Trips, Schoology, SMART lab, OneNote, SWAY, Listening Library, Educational Blogs, Class
Dojo, and a new item as of May 2017 on the list: blended learning (L. Pallor, personal
communication, May 10, 2017). District X increased technological awareness, finally addressed
a blended learning model as an identifiable teaching approach, and created opportunities for
technological skills development within the two-year time frame of this dissertation study. Some
of these technological features were being used. However, these incentives and trainings were
quite new, and they did not directly address major instructional shifts such as moving from a
traditional teaching model to online or blended learning schoolwide. Furthermore, District X
communicated a mixed message to stakeholders about technology-infused instruction because
banning cell phones districtwide did not align with the organizational goal of increased
technology use.
Related Literature
Online Learning
The inclusion of technology and technology-infused practice in educational settings is on the
rise in America. At the postsecondary level alone, in Fall 2012, more than 21 million students at
Title IV universities (those participating in federal student financial assistance programs) were
enrolled in distance learning programs (U. S. Department of Education, 2014). Between the
years of 2000 and 2008, the number of students enrolled in a distance learning degree program
doubled (2 to 4 percent), and undergraduate enrollment in online coursework where students
were taking at least one class, rose from 8 to 20 percent (Walton-Radford & Weko, 2011). The
U. S. Department of Education’s current mission is “to promote student achievement and
preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal
access” (U. S. Department of Education, 2015, n. p.). However, inequality in educational
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 14

experience that involves technology inclusion exists. Mission statements, visions, instructional
outcomes, and access to technology vary depending on the school and its stakeholder leaders.
Online learning is no longer a distance learning endeavor, and federal initiatives impact
online coursework in public schools. In K12, where Common Core mandates inform
pedagogical and curricular decisions, the demand for improved secondary online course
development increases. Nationally, the development and unification of CCSS in 2009 originated
from a lack of standardization in educational outcomes regarding the definition of student
proficiency across multiple learning standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016).
Moreover, a collection of empirical studies involving instructional models became the basis for a
national analysis that compared online learning to face-to-face classroom learning and revealed
that blended instruction was more advantageous than instruction that occurred in solely online
settings or face-to-face settings (U. S. Department of Education, 2009). Although it remains a
somewhat ambiguous term for practitioners, blended learning historically dates back to the
1890’s during the Chautauqua Movement for rural Sunday School education, when teachers
provided instruction that was followed by completion of lessons through the U. S. Postal Service
(Florian & Zimmerman, 2015). Nevertheless, in any educational setting, a good teacher’s
primary concern is to ensure that students learn—and that their learning is personally meaningful
and relevant. Delivery of curriculum should center on collaboration, shared priorities, and
clarification of how students will gain knowledge and skills (Dufour & Marzano, 2011).
Governing educational ideals such as collaboration, priorities, and clarity in practice are
paramount, but gaps between sectors can prevent wholistic thinking.
A division exists between on-site and online sectors involving Internet and technology use.
Technology is a major constituent of the educational system, but not all educational leaders and
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 15

practitioners are on board with the idea that technology usage in instruction is necessary (Kemp
et al., 2014). Since the 1990s, Web-based instruction has been on the rise (Florian &
Zimmerman, 2015). However, according to the tenth annual report on the state of online
learning in U. S. higher education, which was administered and then analyzed in 2012, one
fourth of academic leaders believe that online courses or programs are inferior to face-to-face
instruction. Academic leaders at institutions where online courses are not offered were five
times more likely to believe that online learning is inferior to face-to-face instruction. This
survey of higher education revealed three significant barriers that exist in higher education
settings: faculty resistance to the belief that online learning is valuable and legitimate; faculty
belief that teaching online courses requires more time and effort than teaching face-to-face; and
the belief of academic leaders that employers do not accept online degrees as substantial (Allen
& Seaman, 2013). Furthermore, a nationwide survey discovered that up to 25 percent of public
school teachers had PD training related to integration of the Internet in instruction; however, in
2002, 99 percent of public schools were connected to the Internet (U. S. Department of
Education, 2003). In short, not all faculty accepts online instruction as worthwhile, which
impedes its growth (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Today’s learning media offers LMS platforms that
vary in opportunities for instructional autonomy and delivery—but the instructional tools are
available. Multiple LMS options exist for schools who want to put their classes online.
Blackboard, founded in 1997, claims to be innovative by “shaping the future of education”
(Blackboard, 2016). Canvas, an LMS founded in 2008 and launched in 2011, advocates its ease
of use. Canvas claims to be “adaptable, adoptable, and reliable,” and allows teachers to simplify
teaching, connect digital tools, personalize instruction, and customize classrooms (Canvas,
2016). ICT integration—specifically, in online learning—is an option for teachers in the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 16

traditional classroom setting. What could be done to make teaching with the Internet
consistently plausible at District X? Stakeholders at Senior High School X were not yet
definitive stakeholders who collectively exhibited power, legitimacy, and urgency regarding this
matter (Lewis, 2011). In the discussion of teacher use of technology-infused instruction, two
constructs are pivotal: professional development and professional identity.
Professional Development
Generally, not all teachers are committed to PD. If the learning goal is to increase student
achievement and to ensure that all students learn at high levels, then professional learning
communities (PLCs) must demand effective collaboration among teachers (DuFour & Marzano,
2011). PD that is top-down and based on new structures of funding, charter schools or
technologies, tends not to be effective in changing teacher practice. A one-size-fits-all approach
is not realistic because the classroom is a complex environment where students have different
motivations, interests, and abilities (Cuban, 2013). Teacher integration of technology requires
that PD programs restructure how teachers gain knowledge to improve instructional practice
(Plair, 2008). The way PD is delivered can make a difference in both teacher and student
understanding (Claesgens et al., 2013). An ideal PD needs to kindle curiosity and yield fruitful
outcomes related to technology-infused practice, specifically, in new endeavors such as blended
learning models. School District X is an intriguing site in which to investigate these dynamics.
PD related to teacher design and use of technology in the classroom is worth considering.
Improvement in direct instruction is essential to PD. To illustrate, in the 1980s, teachers became
better at their craft through direct application of improvement strategies such as the Madeline
Hunter approach to lesson planning (Cuban, 2013). A core challenge of educational reform and
ICT exists in the practitioner’s perspective about the technology and the innovation; teachers
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 17

need to be the ones designing their learning experiences, which maximizes their involvement
(Svihla, Reeve, Sagy, & Kali, 2015). Teachers should be in the learning role where they voice
perceptions of their own learning, and their learning can impact their practice (Murthy et al.,
2015). Voice is integral to organizational change (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). In-service
teacher education through PD can build upon the teachers’ local connections and relationships
(Obenchain, Balkute, Vaughn, & White, 2016). Teachers who do not have prior experience
teaching with digital curriculum materials may have difficulty understanding their teaching role,
where online supports and guidance are needed (Puttick et al., 2015). Veteran teachers
experience difficulties integrating technology into existing pedagogy that is comfortable (Plair,
2008). Although the delivery format of PD may not have an observable effect on student
understanding, PD can impact levels of implementation instructionally (Claesgens et al., 2013).
However, “innovation” must be carefully defined, as well as “technology” in educational
settings. Technological innovations—laptops, computers, and handheld devices—may be
present in the classroom, but teachers continue to teach with familiar practices (Couros, 2015;
Cuban, 2013). PD needs to include technology fluency that can support continuity of ICT use.
In this sense, “knowledge brokers”—individuals responsible for fine-tuned delivery of the latest
strategies and techniques—can assist teachers (Plair, 2008). PD at Senior High School X was
not orchestrated nor designed, instead, teachers received emails that asked them indiscriminately
what they would like to learn on upcoming PD days. A recent PD training did address new
technological tools as well as training on specific Microsoft Office 365 features. However, the
training emphasized tools and programs, not digital learning settings (J. Gray, personal
communication, November 22, 2016). PD opportunities at Senior High School X may not have
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 18

been delivering the outcomes teachers needed to demonstrate change from teacher-centered to
student-centered practice that included ICT—and a new form of teacher identity.
Professional Identity
Professional identity is an important self-entity to address for a variety of reasons: every
teacher has a professional identity, discovering how teachers see themselves is essential to
understanding how teachers behave, and professional identity impacts teacher choice and
willingness to change. Professional identity was the single construct that threaded the tapestry of
this dissertation project. Teaching is a such a complicated behavior that its full import has
eluded the sophisticated tools of the social sciences (Sykes, 2008). The impact of PD on
professional identity as a research emphasis was worth exploring. Professional identity
underscores teacher community and systems of knowledge and beliefs (Fajardo Castañeda,
2014). How teachers see themselves is inherently linked to educational change and coping with
that change (Roux, 2011). Research on teacher identity formation speaks to how teachers feel in
today’s schools, how teachers cope with school change, and the separation of personal desire and
professional expectations (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). Teachers can re-identify their
missions and reconsider professional identity in practice (Pinho & Andrade, 2015). Teacher
professional identity extends beyond subject matter competency (Rogers, 2011). Furthermore,
employees may not feel much responsibility for an organization’s performance (Bolman & Deal,
2013). Teachers must have voice in their organizations: teachers must work toward an
awareness of identity and the contexts and relationships that shape them to “(re) claim”
ownership of voice. This means teachers must shift psychologically in how they think of
themselves as teachers (Rodgers & Scott, 2008). In other words, teacher professional identity is
multi-stranded and can involve different aspects of self. Self and identity play a role in the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 19

development of professional identity (Karabay, 2016). Additionally, prospective teachers in
teacher training programs may find that their values about teaching and asserting those values
may clash with those of the educational program. This poses a conflict in exercising the very
voice and self-authorization that programs advocate their outgoing practitioners to have (Rodgers
& Scott, 2008). Personal history at the very onset of becoming a teacher inevitably contributes
to the voice practitioners share in their future organizations. This varies among teachers. One
contribution to identify formation cannot be overlooked: experience.
Professional experiences matter. Technology must be an internal and intuitive component of
teaching practice. Professional experiences impact teacher professional identity (Karabay,
2016). But researchers conceptualize teacher professional identity differently (Beijaard et al.,
2004). The researcher of this dissertation study sought to understand professional identity
related to PD training, and the ways in which teachers categorize themselves not only as teachers
but as learners. Teachers make sense of their learning through metaphors. Cultural metaphors in
the teaching profession can influence how teachers make sense of experiences (Rosaen & Florio-
Ruane, 2008). Experiences with online learning can be positive or negative. The goal is to
determine how teachers envision themselves related to the changes they are being asked to
implement to better serve students. Online learning is here to stay, but the movement toward
equity in educational settings remains a long road of investigation and inquiry.
Online education—online terminology, the experience for teacher and learner, and the status
of digital learning as equally acceptable and viable to traditional instruction—is changing in
America. The insurgence of online learning in this country forces on-campus instruction to
change and move beyond older forms of instructional delivery (Gray, 2013). Online learning is a
rising trend in technology use (U. S. Department of Education, 2010). Online instruction and
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 20

learning is a growing educational phenomenon that necessitates attention to two issues: digital
learning as a powerful addition to existing educational cultures, and improved instructional
quality for students in all learning settings, specifically, K12. Illuminating possibilities for
positive instructional change that can benefit teachers and students is paramount. Those
possibilities call for innovation.
Importance of an Innovation at This School Site
The model for this dissertation was “Innovation”.
12
This dissertation project was innovative
in several ways: the topic of the dissertation was timely, stakeholder study participants at the
school site were the teachers (not the students), the study participants completed a qualitative not
a quantitative survey as part of the triangulation of data, the researcher presented PD
meaningfully and differently where study participants got to interact and share, the researcher
sustained investigation into one thematic idea throughout the process—professional identity, and
the findings were presented with narrative, not report, in mind. Why was innovation the model
of choice for this project and this school?
Innovation might provide for teachers a new way of thinking about their situation at the
school site. The problem of reduced teacher buy-in, advocacy, and usage of ICT (including
online or blended learning instruction models) in the traditional school setting was important to
address through creative thinking. Blended learning is a model that was used by only 2% of
teachers at Senior High School X when the research project started. That was a small number.
And it was not increasing rapidly.
At the time the project began, the school did not even have a schoolwide template with which
to consider online learning. Only two teachers at the high school had earned a grant for blended

12
May 2015 cohort students in the Ed.D. Organizational Change and Leadership (OCL) program each chose a
dissertation model based on four model options.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 21

learning instruction. Therefore, blended learning was not being used in more than a few
classrooms (L. Tree, personal communication, January 27, 2016). However, the few teachers
using blended learning were doing something new at the school site. Over a two-year period,
more teachers, especially in science, began to consider and implement teaching with Schoology,
a free LMS the district had adopted. These teachers who embraced online learning were driving
that effort, although they remained few in numbers. Discovery-driven stakeholders lead to
innovation at various levels of an organization (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011). At the
school site, online learning models looked different depending on the class being taught.
Teachers, counselors, coaches, and administrators had different views of what blended learning
and technology integration are (L. Tree, personal communication, January 27, 2016). Digital
text alone can be considered an innovation (Puttick et al., 2015). Although some teachers
schoolwide were using digital text through PowerPoints, content delivery, and required typed
papers, only a few teachers took instruction with technology further by using the Internet daily in
instruction. However, most teachers at Senior High School X did not predominantly use ICT to
facilitate instruction. Although efficiency and innovation can be complementary, teachers may
not unlearn easily well-learned routines (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). The teaching staff majority
used a traditional instructional model.
Innovation might accelerate the progression toward increased teacher use of the Internet in
instruction, both at the district and school levels. Online learning integration at Senior High
School X over these two years was limited to Weebly, online learning through the state,
Brainhoney, GradPoint (a course completion avenue that was presented as blended but is solely
online at the high school), and Schoology (an LMS housing curriculum used to enhance science
courses, and to showcase coursework explanations and provide assessments students take on
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 22

iPads in other subject areas) (D. Freeman, personal communication, May 15, 2016). Some
practitioners were increasingly using technology in their classrooms in the past school year—
more talk and training occurred at the school site, including a recent PD training led by a science
teacher using apps and features for iPad sessions in class, including websites to augment
formative assessment (J. Gray, personal communication, November 22, 2016). Some digital
tools available to teachers at the school site included augmented reality (AR). This meant a
teacher could use a mobile device to superimpose the digital world (such as a video of someone)
on a “real world” image (such as a poster). Using virtual reality (VR), the teacher could ask
students to wear special goggles that house a cell phone. Looking through the goggles at the
video playing on the phone could make the setting appear as if one was there physically. These
tools livened instruction, especially in science classes (J. Gray, personal communication,
December 15, 2016). Although there was an influx of technological tools and roaming devices
such as class sets of iPads or laptops gaining popularity at the school site, these creative tools did
not flood classrooms. Online learning and blended learning were not at the forefront of learning
schoolwide.
Innovation might help the district advance in accountability. For District X to fulfill its
mission, the district as director and provider (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004) needed to provide
several avenues for students to be successful, and needed to be accountable to the district’s
Continuous Improvement Plan. The superintendent stated that she would like to see technology
become a priority in instructional alignment to CCSS. Technology was linked loosely as a target
goal for teachers; the performance goal that existed in the strategic plan (changed to “Continuous
Improvement Plan”) was not measured nor tracked (L. Sherry, personal communication,
February 4, 2016). However, as providers, teachers are professionally and bureaucratically
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 23

accountable (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Teachers had to adhere to Common Core to ensure that
students were demonstrating proficiency of standards in core subject areas. Consideration of
multiple instructional strategies is advantageous to achieve global and performance goals, but the
district was not fully clear on how that would be done. Again, a new way of thinking about the
problem and potential solutions, was in order.
Innovation might provide new ways of thinking about new teaching approaches and the role
of the educator. District X’s failure to develop programs that addressed meaningful technology
reflected a lack of professional and organizational success in achieving the performance goal.
Innovators understand the importance of discovery—that the view of the problem space is not
actual; instead, innovators question the arena to learn what exists there (Dyer et al., 2011). This
is an age of “disruptive tech” where change should be viewed as opportunity (Learnnovators,
2016). An innovative approach to the organizational problem and goal was a worthwhile effort
to determine stakeholder willingness to use ICT, to determine how PD might impact ICT use—
and to discover why, in concordance to District X efforts, the use of ICT remained remote among
practitioners in this setting, even under the Common Core umbrella.
Innovation might help teachers develop a greater sense of self and voice in the organization.
A notable observation related to the problem of reduced ICT use at Senior High School X and
this need for innovation was that teachers were often misinformed about the technological tools
and programs they were expected to use. Misinformation included technological tools and
programs that are available or change in terms of accessibility without explanation.
Communication between stakeholders had “structural holes” (Lewis, 2011). Teachers seemed to
expect this lack of clarity. In this regard, teachers remained confused and sometimes frustrated
that their technological requests and needs are not met, even though the school district claims to
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 24

be making progress on the organizational goal regarding technology (G. Tyler, personal
communication, September 9, 2016). A “divide” existed between administrative leadership
decisions and teacher access and/or use. This divide spoke to the notion of the problem space
within the organization. How could this be changed? The researcher’s hope was to discover if
effective communication through an innovative PD effort might offer some resolution to this
breakdown, and contribute to the potential for new insight about professional identity among
practitioners. The innovation in this dissertation study asked that teachers contemplate the
possibility of a shift in thinking and behavior related to technology integration in classroom
teaching to challenge traditional teaching approaches.
Description of Stakeholder Groups at This School Site
At Senior High School X, three stakeholder groups involved in the teaching and learning
dynamic (as in any other public school) were students, teachers, and administrators, listed here
by degree of importance related to service. Students are at the base of the educational
structure—they are why teachers teach, and why administrators are valued as significant
members of the organization. All three stakeholder groups could benefit from the achievement
of the organization’s performance goal. Administrators at Senior High School X were
responsible for communicating the performance goal to teachers, and for providing structured
time whereby teachers could receive professional development training. Teachers were
responsible for executing objectives related to the performance goal, such as looking for new
ways to implement technology into classroom instruction. Students were the recipients of both
teacher and administrative efforts, whether direct or indirect. Students revealed the success or
failure of instructional endeavors through participation in lesson plans, activities, and
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 25

instructional models that either housed or dispelled opportunities for technology-infused
educational practice. The following table lists key stakeholder performance goals (see Table 1).
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of District X was to provide each student with the highest quality education
possible.

Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2017 district instructional coaches would develop specific training modules related to
implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and incorporating digital media and
technology into general education curricula.
District X Instructional
Coaches
Principal at Senior High
School X
Teachers at Senior High
School X
By May 2017 the
instructional coaches would
compile data that revealed
the content, scope, and
frequency of staff trainings
related to the incorporation
of digital media and
technology in classroom
teaching.
By May 2017 the school
principal would allow time
for a one-time professional
development opportunity
that allowed teachers to
express interest and/or learn
new strategies for ICT
application at the school site,
and this application would
be evidenced through lesson
planning.

By May 2017 the number of
teachers at the high school
who use ICT meaningfully
in instruction would double,
and their use of ICT in the
classroom would be
measured through lesson
planning each trimester.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 26

Stakeholder Group for the Study
All stakeholder groups in District X contributed collectively but not equally to the outcomes
of the district’s global goals, specifically, the mission of providing each student with the highest
quality education possible. The stakeholder group for this study was a small set of teachers at
Senior High School X. The decision to focus on teachers was based on an observation that many
of the teachers at Senior High School X appeared unmotivated or unopen to using technology
(accessible training, tools, software, online learning, blended learning forums) innovatively (L.
Sherry, personal communication, February 4, 2016). Administrators inevitably respond to
teacher demands, and students are the recipients of their teachers’ efforts. Teachers are at the
hub of curriculum development and design. These primary stakeholders make significant
instructional decisions that create unique experiences for students. Instruction may be
abundantly rich or deficient in pedagogical scope and teaching approach. Teachers at Senior
High School X either took center stage as advocates and practitioners of technology-infused
instruction or they remained inveterate champions of traditional instructional approaches that
either minimally included technology (with minor exceptions). Some teachers omitted the use of
technology-infused practice altogether from the traditional classroom setting.
The implied teacher performance goal of increased technology usage stemmed from the
district’s stated professional development “target” goal that teachers will be trained in
technology annually. District X did not have a clear measurement strategy or plan for
implementation of this goal (M. Seewell, personal communication, April 11, 2016). Yet the
organization received funding for technology and presumed student advancement in this area (L.
Sherry, personal communication, February 4, 2016). A detachment existed between implied
expectations of the state related to technology funding, and demonstration of progress related to
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 27

technology usage in the high school building. This posed an ethical risk. One action towards
ethical problem solving is identifying the benefits and harm, and determining which alternative
will lead to the best consequences (Velasquez, Andre, Thomas Shanks, & Meyer, 2011).
Accountability was in the hands of several stakeholders, particularly, teachers. Funds often went
first to basic technology needs—those “substitute” features, such as replacing old or broken
equipment (L. Sherry, personal communication, February 4, 2016). The high school, as part of
the district, received money for technology. In spite of federal mandates, budget cuts, imposed
programs, and other pressures and challenges that come from the top down, teachers chose what
mattered most in the classroom and how they would integrate technology in to instruction.
Teachers were accountable in this endeavor.
Purpose of This Innovation Project: Three Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to improve organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The purpose centered on three strands of inquiry: to
examine how knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational barriers (O) among teachers
obstructed the performance goal of increased ICT usage in instruction, to determine how PD
impacted professional identity, and to examine how a one-time innovation connected to PD
either impeded or propelled more teachers to use ICT. The study analyzed how to introduce
online or blended learning into a high school environment. The analysis included observations
of stakeholder behaviors and instructional ideology that prevented solid or progressive change in
teaching with the Internet. The gap analysis also included inquiry into the assumed influences of
observable behaviors and instructional choices. Possible assumed influences were considered,
and a systematic examination was completed to determine the validity of proposed influences on
the organization’s inability to meet the goal. A complete gap analysis would focus on all
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 28

stakeholders, but for practical purposes the stakeholders at the center of this analysis were
teachers in two subgroups: teachers who used ICT and teachers who did not. The study focused
on the relationships between KMO, and centered on a PD opportunity to increase teacher interest
in using ICT in the classroom.
Gap Analysis Research Questions
1. How do knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers impact teacher use of
information and communication technologies (ICT), specifically, blended learning?
2. How does professional development impact teacher professional identity?
3. Can innovative delivery of professional development increase teacher inclination to use
information and communication technologies (ICT) in the classroom?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework Overview
A complete explanation of methodology appears in Chapter Three of this dissertation. The
conceptual framework the researcher selected for the study was a gap analysis, a very specific
framework for investigating performance gaps in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
researcher used gap analysis to identify and systematize data regarding gaps in three areas in the
organization: KMO. Gaps affected the goals of District X. Researcher observation and related
literature revealed evidence of these gaps and the need for an appropriate conceptual framework
to analyze causes and probable solutions. The researcher analyzed the impact of each gap area
on the organization’s productivity by using surveys, interviews, PD notes, researcher journal
entries, and literature review. The methodological framework was a qualitative study that was
triangulated. Solutions to the problem were identified as recommendations in each of the gap
analysis areas followed by a subsequent implementation plan, and the potential for continued
incremental innovation in District X. Solutions were research-based and considered to be
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 29

reasonable, substantial, and viable efforts toward effective change and increased solidarity within
the organization and the school.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 30

CHAPTER TWO: A LITERATURE REVIEW—TEACHERS AND DIGITAL LEARNING
General Literature Related to the Problem of Practice
Teachers Meeting 21
st
Century Demands
Teachers must develop relationships with a digital generation. Digital learning is part of
having a “digital mindset” that calls for application extending far beyond being tech-savvy with
social media. Having a “digital mindset” means demonstrating behaviors and attitudes that
enable organizations to see possibilities that can deepen personal and professional fulfillment
(Learnnovators, 2016). Younger teachers are associated with being those digital generation
teachers. However, a gap exists even between digital native teachers and technology integration
in classroom instruction (Li, Worch, Zhou, & Aguiton, 2015). Moreover, teachers nationally are
slow to transform teaching practice despite the influx of technology into classrooms (Herold,
2015). Yet consider the undeniable digital revolution that permeates social structures and
impacts education—a shift from analog, electronic, and mechanical tools to the technological
tools that can impact instructional strategies (Delgado et al., 2015). According to Higgins
(2014), digital skills and increased critical and creative thinking skills related to ICT require
reinforcement in instruction to ensure competency among learners. Teaching thinking skills
necessitates development of critical and reflective attitudes and inclusion of specific content
knowledge. Additionally, for knowledge to be “productive,” learners must discern key
information and how to apply it in their settings. Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka (2013) posit that
learning should be central to integration of ICT at a school site and that the potential of ICT
needs to be delivered in support of processes of teaching and learning throughout an entire
school community, to sustain innovative strategies. In this regard, alignment of critical thinking
and digital skills is productive if the thinking involved elicits the ability to tackle challenges and
to problem-solve (Higgins, 2014). The presence of technology does not transform teaching
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 31

practice, rather, the integration of ICT into practice entails meaningful interactions among
stakeholders (Bang & Luft, 2013). In the initial stages of technology-infused instruction,
teachers must develop specific digital skills that become meaningful.
To do this, teachers need a “digital literacies” vocabulary. “Digital literacies” can be defined
as a category of literacy that includes electronic devices, communication, and technological
terminology related to that communication (Morrell, 2012). Teachers need to establish a strong
foundation in content knowledge as well as a variety of effective practices that support learners
(Roberts, Shedd, & Norman, 2012). New literacies in the 21
st
century demand teacher and
student development of new literacy skills in reading and writing tasks centered on technology.
For teaching practice to evolve, teachers must have foundational knowledge in both digital
literacies and technology integration (Pilgrim & Martinez, 2015). Even the government supports
this, not as a need unique to teachers, but as an American obligation. The Obama Administration
recently designated a Digital Literacy portal which supports the need for increased knowledge of
digital terminology and technological skills so Americans will be able to participate more
completely in the economy (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2016). Participation in the global
economy requires teachers—the deliverers of information to youth—to change. Teachers need
to help students become fully literate in today’s definition of literacy (Hutchinson & Colwell,
2014). Digital learning tends to be theoretical instead of practitioner-based on a large scale, yet
the term digital is used in multiple disciplines and contexts, and should be a common
understanding among educators (Pilgrim & Martinez, 2015). However, this understanding
remains nebulous in teaching practice. Teachers face the challenge of how to support student
inquiry and the evolution of knowledge and skills—furthermore, technology is evolving faster
than it can be applied in instructional practice (Roberts et al., 2012). Teaching with technology
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 32

and encouraging students to develop 21
st
century skills in ICT is more than a personal,
professional, or macroeconomic ideal.
ICT integration in classroom instruction can support state mandates such as CCSS, perhaps,
more than practitioners realize. In an investigation of CCSS a few years ago, a substantial
number of CCSS strands involved technology and collectively accounted for 29 grade-level
standards nationally (Roberts, et al., 2012). The CCSS align digital technology and domain-
specific literacy in grades 6-12. To improve college and career readiness among teens,
practitioners must reconsider literacy (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2014). The CCSS address ways
for students to master new ways of reading and writing (Pilgrim & Martinez, 2015). Teachers
can combine technology-based standards with non-technology standards as one approach to the
integration of digital technology in the classroom. Digital tools need to be integrated to support
literacy among students in secondary education (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2014). According to
these shifts in state expectations, teachers who make these pedagogical changes better serve their
students.
Teachers Making Changes in Instructional Delivery
Teachers do integrate digital tools and online forums in classroom instruction, specifically, in
science and literature-based curriculums. Educational technology is constantly evolving and
includes daily developments of educational applications (Delgado et al., 2015). Part of the push
for students meeting 21
st
century demands includes the development of Science Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education; STEM is integrated in lesson planning
because teachers believe it is powerful (Capraro & Han, 2014). Secondary (and novice) science
teachers can increase technological use in the classroom by including new tools and programs
beyond PowerPoint, and at junctures where they are already comfortable in technology
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 33

integration (TI) (Bang & Luft, 2013). Digital technology can also be used to support Common
Core English Language Arts (ELA) in both technology-specific and non-technology specific
standards (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2014). Personal and professional experiences influence
technology instruction, and technological abilities vary among new and veteran teachers (Cox,
2013). Teachers can transform instructional strategies and hold students accountable for learning
while emphasizing student-centered learning as an instructional construct that includes
technology and supports educational reform ideals (Delgado et al., 2015). How teachers
integrate technology is not fixed because technology is constantly moving (Ruggiero & Mong,
2015). Technology-centered thinking really is a cultural experience in schools.
Culture is undeniably part of teaching communities. Institutionalized structures and cultural
factors in schools affect how teachers put technology into practice (Puttick et al., 2015).
Teachers who are already familiar with technology and teach in schools that support technology
integration, may be at an advantage culturally (Bang & Luft, 2013). Technology necessitates
redefining culture related to learning, including the introduction of new terminology and
resources such as e-textbooks and e-readers that lend themselves to hyperlinks and website
accessibility during the reading experience, as opposed to using only hard-copy print (Dobler,
2015). The question is whether individual teachers will make that change within social learning
contexts. Social systems and sociostructural influences affect human functioning (Bandura,
2005). Practitioners need to consider their own roles in sociostructures, as well as the roles their
students have. Socioeconomic status (SES) among students is a cultural experience that also
impacts technological accessibility. Students who are low-income may have to share resources
and may have much more limited time on the Internet than higher income students (which
reveals a participation gap). However, students who are low-income maintain interest in using
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 34

technology that is introduced into the educational environment (Greenhow, Walker, & Kim,
2009). Practitioners should not make assumptions about student interest or motivation regarding
ICT. Instead, teachers must work to create classrooms that provide technological access for all
students to support cultural cohesion both in face-to-face settings and in digital learning forums.
Yet this is not always the case.
Teachers Not Integrating Technology
Some teachers resist using technology in classroom instruction. A typology of resistance can
exist for stakeholders in any organization: denial of a need for change, refusal to accept
responsibility for change, refusal to implement change, and repression, where there is action to
dismantle a change effort (Agocs, 1997). Teacher resistance to using ICT, to changing, or to
following the protocols set at district and state levels may involve silence as a barrier to change.
Employees might exhibit organizational silence, including managerial perspectives that
employees are self-interested and untrustworthy (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Furthermore,
time may be another factor in teacher resistance to integrate technological tools and programs in
the classroom (Martin & Carr, 2015). An individual decides whether to become involved in
learning about change; furthermore, participation in decision-making, training, and
communication programs can reduce resistance (Agocs, 1997). The individual practitioner
exhibits personal power regarding willingness to change practice.
Individual perceptions influence teacher usage of technology in the classroom. A disconnect
can exist between technology planning, curriculum planning, and pedagogy, which includes self-
perception of the inability to perform what the government or state expects (Cox, 2013).
Teacher perception of computer skills, and technology access and support impact individual use
of technology in the classroom (Li et al., 2015). According to Ruggiero and Mong (2015),
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 35

technology integration is a process. The integration of technology into daily class lessons is
centered on creating learning, not emphasizing a specific technological tool; PD can emphasize
this process. However, although teachers are responsible for implementation of digital learning
materials and experimentation with new technology, a gap in research exists about the best ways
teachers can learn to work with digital tools (Puttick et al., 2015). Researchers have identified
that problems with teacher adaptation of technology-infused instruction involve teacher beliefs,
lack of expertise, erratic training, and environmental support (Herold, 2015). No change will
occur in the delivery of instruction without practitioner buy-in and advocacy.
Stakeholder Assumed Influences in Knowledge and Motivation,
and the Problem of Practice
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge and skills were relevant to an analysis of stakeholder assumed influences in
knowledge that impacted the achievement of an organizational performance goal. The mission
of District X was that all students would have the highest quality education possible. The goal
for stakeholders at Senior High School X was that by May 2017 the number of teachers at the
high school who use ICT meaningfully in instruction would double and their use of ICT in the
classroom would be measured through lesson planning each trimester. Stakeholders in an
organization need to know how to accomplish performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Additionally, the knowledge dimension is critical to learning (Krathwohl, 2002). To understand
the role of knowledge in stakeholder performance at the high school, knowledge was categorized
appropriately according to knowledge types and influences.
Knowledge types. Knowledge is classified into four types: factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive. A revised structure of Bloom’s Taxonomy defines factual knowledge as:
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 36

terminology, details, and elements; conceptual knowledge as classifications and categories;
procedural knowledge as necessitating the use of steps, methods, and criteria for determining
when to use procedures; and metacognition as an individual’s awareness and knowledge of
cognition, including self-knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Knowledge types support cognitive
approaches to learning, and being clear about what stakeholders should know is paramount in
improving performance (Rueda, 2011). The distance between an organization’s performance
levels and its goals must be ascertained to close gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Part of that process
involved the analysis of stakeholder knowledge influences that impact teacher performance.
Stakeholder knowledge influences. This section examined literature that was relevant to
stakeholder knowledge and the performance goal of increased technology usage in the
classroom. Teachers at the high school used factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge in their practice. Five assumed knowledge influences were categorized into the
aforementioned four knowledge types. These five influences are as follows.
Teachers collectively need to develop shared definitions of technological terminology to
cultivate new instructional approaches that include technology and new schemas about
effective classroom practice. Teachers collectively need to develop shared definitions of
technological terminology (technology, technology training, online learning, blended learning) to
cultivate new instructional approaches that include technology and new schemas about effective
classroom practice. Declarative knowledge is both factual and conceptual (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). “Technology” as a declarative knowledge term can elicit positive or negative
connotations in educational arenas (Kemp et al., 2014). Beginning teachers may define
technology as an added feature instead of a non-negotiable tool in regular teaching routines (Hsu,
2016). In contrast, teachers can build upon terminology to include a more specified definition of
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 37

blended learning in their blended learning model (Florian & Zimmerman, 2015). According to
Kemp et al. (2014), different conceptualizations of technology center on technology integration
and reliance upon technology in instructional practice. Perceptions about technology can range
from a minimalist approach to a global perspective. Additionally, perceptions include both the
benefits and assumed perils of technology-infused instruction. Alderton, Brunsell, and Bariexca
(2011) found that teachers who share a conceptual understanding of the role of technology in
social circles can implement digital communication to augment professional development.
Contrariwise, teachers who don’t know why they are using technological tools lack a deeper
conceptual understanding of pedagogical possibilities (Comas-Quinn, 2011). Without shared
definitions and conceptualizations of technology usage, teachers lack cohesion related to
technological endeavors. Teachers are also in need of relevant training.
Teachers need technology training to learn new technological skills and how to apply those
skills procedurally to increase technology-infused instructional practices at the school site.
Teachers need technology training to learn new technological skills and how to apply those skills
procedurally to increase technology-infused instructional practices at the school site. Teachers
need technology training opportunities to learn new skills that promote technology-infused
instruction. In addition to technical issues, two main thematic factors that could prevent moving
from traditional teaching approaches to teaching online are teachers’ lack of integration and lack
of time concerning online tools (Comas-Quinn, 2011). According to Hsu (2016), teachers rely
heavily on the need for practice to integrate technology. Additionally, teachers who do not have
a background in online learning and require procedural knowledge to advance, face a steep
learning curve (Comas-Quinn, 2011). Teachers who do understand how technology works, for
instance, in using social media networking to create personal learning networks among group
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 38

members, share professional outcomes that become more meaningful (Alderton et al., 2011).
Not all teachers are social media savvy and not all teachers will apply or know how to apply
what they enjoy on Smartphones perchance, to their teaching practice. Teachers’ lack of training
is a barrier to implementing technology-integrated lessons (Hsu, 2016). Furthermore, practice is
a key factor to the process of transferring information from short-term to long-term memory
(American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education,
2015). Learning itself can be viewed as a process that refers to continual changes, and as a
product that refers to outcomes (Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009). For teachers to learn,
the learning must be meaningful. Consistent with cognitive load theory, extraneous load can
negatively impact teachers who are learning new material if instruction is poorly designed
(Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2009a). DeLeeuw and Mayer (2008) assert that cognitive load is
not a unitary construct. Different manipulations of the learning situation cause different types of
cognitive load that vary and comprise a triarchic theory of processing in three components:
extraneous, intrinsic, and germane. According to Plass, Moreno, and Brunken (2010), the
cognitive load construct asserts that the demands a certain task imposes on the individual affect
learning. Cognitive load theory has focused on the impact objective characteristics of a task
have on cognitive load. Worked examples, completion, split-attention, modality, redundancy,
expertise reversal, guidance fading, and goal-free form are all effects of extraneous load as a
primary cognitive load source. According to Grossman and Salas (2011), transfer of training
requires attention to factors that can contribute to transfer problems. Cognitive ability is a
training characteristic, and trainees who are higher in cognitive ability have more success in
processing, retaining, and generalizing trained skills. Additionally, Buehl and Fives (2009) aver
that professional training and views of knowledge overlap. Teachers who learn clear procedures
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 39

related to technology can apply those procedural skills to classroom settings and spheres.
Learning new procedures is not enough to promote change. Teachers also must rethink who they
are and what they do. Metacognition is a chief form of knowledge that cannot be overlooked.
Teachers need to identify their beliefs about knowledge and teaching knowledge to further
develop these schemas to determine the most effective classroom practices. Teachers need to
identify their beliefs about knowledge and teaching knowledge to further develop these schemas
to determine the most effective classroom practices. Beliefs about the source of knowledge
affect learning outcomes and teaching practice. If individuals believe there is nothing new in
teaching, then individuals will be less likely to process or implement new information or
techniques (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Teachers demonstrate consistency between beliefs and
practice (Hsu, 2016). Teachers need to know how personal beliefs about teaching impact
preferences and pedagogical decisions (Richardson & Alsup, 2015). That pedagogical
understanding can include the benefits of online learning (Comas-Quinn, 2011). Teacher beliefs
about the meaning of teaching are grounded in personal experience (Fajardo Castañeda, 2014).
Teachers who understand their own beliefs about teaching knowledge can address fallacies that
impede effective instructional practice (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Teachers who take a closer look
at their beliefs about teaching and knowledge are taking a closer look at their instructional
choices that either include or exclude technology.
Teachers need to identify and evaluate individually what traditional instructional views and
approaches can be altered to include technology-infused practice. Teachers need to identify
and evaluate individually what traditional instructional views and approaches can be altered to
include technology-infused practice. How teachers think about new ideas and implement them
contributes largely to success in online technologies. Moreover, traditional ideas that define
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 40

learning affect teachers’ willingness to change (Comas-Quinn, 2011). Technology and
educational access, online education, technology and instructional strategies, and technology as a
communication tool are all pertinent themes in discussion about pedagogical shifts (Kemp et al.,
2014). Teacher-centered beliefs can change to include pedagogical beliefs, which can lead to
technology integration in the classroom (Hsu, 2016). Furthermore, teachers who self-reflect can
determine their shortcomings; teachers who practice and reflect, exhibit self-awareness and the
process of knowing oneself (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Teachers can change their beliefs about
technology integration in the classroom irrespective of how many years they have spent in the
field (Hsu, 2016). Teachers who think about the ways in which they might change practice to
integrate technology can challenge traditional instructional approaches. Teachers can transform
identity.
Teachers individually must redefine the term “professional identity” to include technology-
infused instruction in practitioner self-identity. Teachers individually must redefine the term
“professional identity” to include technology-infused instruction in practitioner self-identity. To
promote a shift in instructional approach, teachers need to revisit what denotes being a good
teacher. “Professional identity” can be an ambiguous term for teachers, based on personal
experiences that vary among individuals (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Additionally, traditional models
already garner a sense of identity for teachers (Comas-Quinn, 2011). In the traditional setting,
teachers may not have to wrestle with professional subjectivities that go unquestioned; however,
online teaching necessitates such an effort, whereby the practitioner actually deconstructs and
rebuilds teacher identity (Richardson & Alsup, 2015). Asking teachers to redefine “self” is a tall
call. Redefining professional identity involves shifts in concerns that impact students (Coward,
Matteson, & Hamman, 2012). Teachers must recognize differences in their teaching approaches
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 41

in traditional versus online settings. Doing so allows teachers to change perceptions of who they
are as practitioners, and to build identities that include technology in instruction (Richardson &
Alsup, 2015). Self-awareness impacts professional identity (Fajardo Castañeda, 2014).
Metacognition in the areas of teaching knowledge, instructional views, and professional identity
serves as an integral knowledge type in the analysis of stakeholders’ beliefs about using
technology in the classroom.
Motivation
This section addresses how stakeholder assumed influences in motivation were relevant to
stakeholder achievement of a performance goal. The mission of District X was that all students
will have the highest quality education possible. The goal for stakeholders at Senior High
School X was that by May 2017 the number of teachers at the high school who use ICT
meaningfully in instruction would double, and their use of ICT in the classroom would be
measured through lesson planning each trimester. To analyze why teachers at Senior High
School X were not implementing technology-infused instruction, assumed motivation influences
were worth examining. Two priorities in research related to motivation are scientific
understanding of motivation and the development of ideas and designs that improve motivation
in teaching and learning settings (Pintrich, 2003). According to Clark and Estes (2008),
motivation is essentially defined as a psychological system. Three motivational processes
impact a work environment: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Experienced persons
who are unmotivated exhibit deficiencies in one or more of these motivational indicators.
Motivation causes performance gaps among stakeholders in an organization. This section
examines literature relevant to stakeholder motivation and the performance goal of increased
technology usage in the classroom to promote blended learning instruction.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 42

Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy theory posits that one’s beliefs about ability influence
motivation. Beliefs of personal efficacy are rooted in human agency, whereby individuals
believe they either have or do not have the power to produce results (Bandura, 1997). Self-
efficacy can be a predictor of teachers’ intentions to use technology (Van Acker, van Buren,
Kreijns, & Vermuelen, 2013). Self-efficacy can also be individual or collective. Group
members experience perceive collective efficacy which includes shared beliefs that influence
what group members seek to do collectively (Bandura, 2000). Efficacy is also a social-cognitive
construct (Pintrich, 2003). New realities in education and technology integration in instruction
require that teachers are efficacious. Teachers’ beliefs in efficacy influence both their reception
of technology and adoption of technology (Bandura, 1997). Teachers need to believe they are
capable of learning, using, and implementing technology in classroom settings.
Teachers and self-efficacy theory. Teachers need to believe they are able to deliver
instruction that includes technological tools or online forums. Self-efficacy is essentially linked
to confidence (He, 2014). According to Van Acker et al. (2013), belief is undeniably tied to
attitude, although figuring out the “why” can be abstruse. Positive expectations can have an
indirect effect on intention through self-efficacy, although these indirect relationships may be
difficult to explain theoretically. In other words, perceived efficacy does affect behavior directly
(Bandura, 2000). However, teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy can be highest when teachers
are in the learner role versus the teacher role, as in learning to use online tools instead of
implementing instruction or facilitating student learning online (He, 2014). Assistance and
support can impact teachers’ self-efficacy in using a technological feature or tool (Stanhope &
Corn, 2014). Teachers who have high self-efficacy about technology usage place a positive
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 43

value on using technology in the classroom (Hsu, 2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy can impact their
motivation to use technology. Their values also impact motivation.
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory (EVT) rests on the notion that tasks can
have value, and that an individual can attach value to those tasks. EVT is comprised of a dyad:
the ability to engage in a task, and the desire to engage in a task (Eccles, 2009). Individuals have
perceptions about the usefulness of content or a specific task (Pintrich, 2003). Expectancy-value
is relevant to a variety of task-value experiences, including emotions. In a study that sought to
determine how emotions are regulated, researchers found through expectancy-value theory that
adaptive expectancies can promote adaptive behavior (Tamir, Bigman, Rhodes, Salerno, &
Schreier, 2015). Teachers attach personal value to activities based on self-image (attainment
value), and teachers can determine the worth of a task based on goals, plans, or psychological
needs (utility value) (Eccles, 2009). EVT can be broken down further into two domains:
attainment and utility. Attainment value can be associated with the development of teacher
identity among practitioners (Coward et al., 2012; Fajardo Castañeda, 2014; Ifanti & Fotopoulou,
2010; Richardson & Alsup, 2015). Utility of content and activities promotes higher levels of
values (Pintrich, 2003). Utility also impacts learning motivation (Schmidt, Maier, & Nückles,
2012). How teachers see themselves as practitioners and the value teachers place on technology-
infused practice are integral factors in teacher motivation regarding the use of technology in
classroom instruction.
Teachers and attainment value. Teachers need to see the value of technology in the
classroom, based on self-perceptions and self-image related to professional identity. Self-
perception that involves identity can challenge teachers (Richardson & Alsup, 2015). Education,
training, experiences, and values impact teachers’ perceptions of their professional identity
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 44

(Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2010). An individual’s conception of “teacher self” evolves (Richardson
& Alsup, 2015). Consistent with attainment value, if using ICT is critical to a teacher’s self-
image, then the teacher will place more value on using ICT professionally (Eccles, 2009).
However, teaching online is different than teaching face-to-face (Richardson & Alsup, 2015).
Teacher familiarity with educational setting is important. Teacher education, experience, and
professional development are constructs that have a bearing on the evolution of one’s identity
(Fajardo Castañeda, 2014). Furthermore, teachers who don’t see themselves as classroom
leaders may be unfledged in their development of teacher identity, which impacts what they
value (Coward et al., 2012). Teachers may not see themselves as knowledge contributors either
(Buehl & Fives, 2009). The formation of a teacher’s identity is a process. Professionalism is
hinged on teacher development of professional identity, which is strongly linked to professional
steppingstone experiences: undergraduate studies, trainings, and real-world classroom teaching
that, in turn, lead to teacher action (Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2010). Teacher value of technology
also involves how teachers see themselves using technology in their classrooms.
Teachers and utility value. Teachers need to see the value of using technology in the
classroom as an enhancement to traditional instructional approaches. According to Hora and
Holden (2013), individuals’ beliefs and perceived affordances influence adoption or resistance of
technological tools. Achievement-related choices are linked to an individual’s expectations for
success, and value (Eccles, 2009). Teachers who see value in using a technological feature to
foster meaningful interaction, a personal learning network, or to promote resource sharing can be
motivated to use certain technology in their work (Alderton et al., 2011). Inversely, teachers
who are deeply set in traditional teaching approaches may not believe they need technology to do
their jobs (Aflalo, 2014). Also, teachers’ opinions about the usefulness of multiple online tools
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 45

can vary, depending on the functions the tools perform. Reliability of the tools can be a factor in
task value. Learners’ expectations play a role in their willingness to change (Comas-Quinn,
2011). Individuals who exhibit perceived utility value are more motivated to complete tasks.
The relationship between expectancies and task value is strong, and connects to an individual’s
sense of self (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010). However, usage does not
always mean advocacy. If teachers do not believe that technology will improve their instruction,
then they will preserve traditional instructional approaches (Alflalo, 2014). The interrelationship
of teaching and learning online, and the use of technology in the classroom involve pedagogical
shifts that support technology as being either an enhancement or a support that expands
instruction (Kemp et al., 2014). Expectancy value theory can be judiciously linked to teacher
motivation and technology-infused instruction.
Stakeholder Assumed Influences in Organization, and the Problem of Practice
Organization
This section addresses how stakeholder assumed influences in organization were relevant to
stakeholder achievement of the performance goal. The mission of District X was that all
students will have the highest quality education possible. The goal for stakeholders at Senior
High School X was that by May 2017 the number of teachers at the high school who use ICT
meaningfully in instruction would double, and their use of ICT in the classroom would be
measured through lesson planning each trimester. To analyze why teachers at Senior High
School X were not implementing technology-infused instruction, assumed organizational
influences were worth examining.
General theory related to organizational culture. Organizational culture impacts
stakeholders. Organization is one of the three essential components in a gap analysis used to
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 46

improve organizational performance. Furthermore, culture exists in an organization’s
environment, in individuals, and in groups (Clark & Estes, 2008). Skills, technology, and
knowledge that a group uses to cope with environment can become part of culture (Schein,
2010). Cultural profiles can align culture with an organization’s policies, procedures, and
communication, including core beliefs (Clark & Estes, 2008). The role of knowledge and the
understanding that cultural perspectives and values differ suggest that education needs to fit
diverse student populations and the demands of 21
st
century digital skills (Higgins, 2014).
Controversy exists regarding whether organizations are cultures or have cultures (Bolman &
Deal, 2013). Shared assumptions about the way humans should act impacts variations cross-
culturally in organizations (Schein, 2010). Leaders of organizations must consider various
approaches to examining culture that can lead to organizational change because change is an
overlapping succession of processes and obstacles—and individuals. Also, cultural models
blend both assumptions of two types of methods: social-cognition and dialectical (Kezar, 2001).
What stakeholders consider to be “true” can vary based on the criteria used to determine truth
among groups (Schein, 2010). Truth has personal connotations. To promote organizational
change, leaders must consider varying individual perceptions about self-purpose within the
organization as well as how groups function together within the whole structure.
General theory related to organizational structure. The structure of an organization can
be improved internally to increase performance. Reframing an organization is necessary for
improvement, and subsequently, four distinct approaches to viewing an organization can
empower effective change: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic (Bolman & Deal,
2013). Culture and conditions impact change in educational systems (Davis et al., 2013). Self-
directed teams produce better results than groups functioning under top-down control (Bolman &
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 47

Deal, 2013). To restructure an organization, leaders must analyze the organization according to
value chains and value streams (Clark & Estes, 2008). Those values might be created or claimed
(Bolman & Deal, 2013). Managers might find that stakeholders are divided because they have
polarized views; stakeholders who are polarized in an organization fear that the opposite views
and values are wrong (Johnson, 1998). Values can clash under the umbrella of culture and
change, and an organization might require stakeholders to develop new views (Kezar, 2001).
Essentially, organizational leaders need to propel a culture of learning, where stakeholders share
the assumption that learning is positive, and learners can proactively solve problems (Schein,
2010). Culture at this school site must grow to include digital learning.
Stakeholder organizational influences. This section examines literature that is relevant to
stakeholder knowledge and the performance goal of increased technology usage in the
classroom. Organizational structure, culture, and barriers impacted teachers at the high school.
Cultural influences included both cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural model influence #1: Teachers are not accountable to peers or supervisors for
using technology. A traditional, cultural dynamic of teacher isolation has impacted
administrators’ ability to lead teachers by impacting professional practice; principals have
become sole managers instead of leading their schools (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Management is only one dimension of leadership (McGowan & Miller, 2001). Trustworthy
managerial behavior likely connects to employee behaviors, and stakeholders need to trust those
managers (Korsgaard, Whitener, & Brodt, 2002). Management that is open-book encourages
trust among stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Furthermore, managers need to focus on
stakeholders as individuals and use their talents for performance (Buckingham & Coffman,
1999). In terms of performance related to state mandates, Common Core necessitates that
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 48

teachers use technology fruitfully in instructional practice, and that teachers can verbalize
thought processes related to Common Core curriculum alignment through website navigation,
decision-making, and logistical processes (Roberts et al., 2012). The value of critical thinking is
dependent on the focus of the thinking, as in the depth of the problem that is being tackled
(Higgins, 2014). Great managers have to break rules (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). And
employees need to speak up to avoid being silent when concerns and problems arise (Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). Effective district, school, and classroom leaders emphasize their sphere of
influence and demonstrate personal accountability for outcomes (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Leaders at the school site do not communicate the expectation that teaching in online or blended
learning models is important as a schoolwide effort (E. Harris, personal communication, April
28, 2017). Furthermore, how teachers see themselves as practitioners can reflect that school
culture within the context of cultural models.
Cultural model influence #2: Teachers have accepted their cultural roles—their
professional identity—as traditional classroom teachers. First and foremost, teachers may not
see themselves as leaders. Issues that can influence teacher self-perception are: how
practitioners define the role of a teacher, teacher resistance to sharing leadership positions with
supervisors, and the concern that teachers will not earn recognition for even informal leadership
positions (Lowery-Moore, Latimer, & Villate, 2016). The way teachers interpret who they are as
educators, and the new roles they will have, are factors in how teachers cope with educational
change, and how willing they are to affect change (Roux, 2011). New terminology can define
teacher role, such as becoming an “eTeacher” (Davis et al., 2013). However, teachers may be
unclear about their roles in the classroom, where the computer becomes an alternate source of
instructional authority (Puttick et al., 2015). This is not the ideal scenario. Teachers must re-
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 49

identify who they are if technology-infused instruction involves new learning. Immersion in the
process of learning and knowing can significantly affect teachers’ emerging professional
identities and values (Rogers, 2011). Visible signs of practitioner change exist when an
individual re-identifies professional mission, and revisits professional identity related to that
individual’s interpretation of learning and professional transformation (Pinho & Andrade, 2015).
However, changing culture can be anxiety-provoking (Schein, 2010). Yet addressing a school’s
culture by shaping stakeholder assumptions, beliefs, and expectations is a responsibility (DuFour
& Marzano, 2011). According to Schein (2010), assumptions are part of culture, and socially,
group members can reinforce beliefs and values, and group learning. In addition, collective
beliefs and values impact self-efficacy among a group (Bandura, 2000). Professional identity
can be connected to teacher community belief whereby learning to teach is socially negotiated
(Farjardo Castañeda, 2014). In short, and most poignantly, teacher leadership is a powerful force
in school reform (Lowery-Moore et al., 2016). Digital collaboration among teachers can
promote personal learning networks that are meaningful and challenge teacher isolation
(Alderton et al., year). According to Farjardo Castañeda (2014), meaning in teaching can be
hinged on personal experience, and individual beliefs affect classroom behavior among
practitioners. Individuals also represent meaning metaphorically. Teachers may use metaphors
to describe their teaching identities, which can be windows into self-perception, values, and
beliefs; teacher identity might be connected to teacher training, and teacher identity has
definitive cognitive, social, and professional implications (Karabay, 2016). Consider the
metaphor of “keystone species”, a term that can refer to teachers when teachers adopt ICT in
their practice and support the “evolution” of education (Davis et al., 2013). To further this
metaphor, digital curriculum is part of a digital environment that necessitates practitioner
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 50

adaptation to inclusion to maintain instructional control (Puttick et al., 2015). Digital
advancement in schools can also be conceptualized as a “co-evolutionary framework” that
addresses political, bureaucratic, and professional areas of development (Davis et al., 2013).
Kezar (2001) describes evolutionary change models as being vulnerable to the interplay between
internal and external environments. According to Davis et al. (2013), changing environments
can be termed ecosystems because teaching and learning do not occur in closed systems; in this
regard, the use of ICT is an environmental change. Therefore, co-evolution of education and
digital technologies exists, but progression is slow. PD is one of four interacting “ecologies” that
support change in ICT use. Teachers are the ones who have the most influence on the
ecosystem—the cultural landscape. This landscape is where teacher practitioners develop
professional identities related to technology-infused instruction within the context of cultural
models. Cultural setting also impacts technology-infused instruction.
Cultural setting influence #1: Teachers are provided minimal technological tools and
funding for related practice. Yanez, Okada, and Palau (2015) posit that technology has changed
content consumption and cultural experiences; technology can promote the cultural shifts needed
for inclusion of a digital culture that supports wide access and 21
st
century global
competitiveness. In contrast, prior schooling frameworks resist incorporation of ICT (Davis et
al., 2013). Furthermore, funding of public schools since the mid-twentieth century has affected
teaching practice indirectly, and each state varies in how to fund schools (Cuban, 2013).
Technological change can be referred to as a digital revolution (Delgado et al., 2015). This
means that teachers can significantly transform their teaching through technological tools and
instructional strategies that infuse technology. However, relevant in-services, lack of
technology, and restricted curriculum are still viable external barriers to technology integration
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 51

(Ruggiero & Mong, 2015). Organizational barriers include professional support and access to
hardware and software. These notable barriers have been reduced in the past two decades due to
increased funding and strategies for technology integration in schools. However, technology on
its own is not a teacher—organizations need to apply technology educationally (Delgado et al.,
2015). A dedicated design of digital curriculum can support both teachers and students. This
design needs to incorporate explicit information and PD opportunities regarding teaching
challenges, and needs to address the exploration of individual instructional goals within a
dominant force of “teacher-centered” classrooms (Puttick et al., 2015). Nevertheless, teacher-
centered classrooms will not change if teachers do not see a benefit for students. The top two
structural innovations in funding for schools have centered on reducing class size and creating
charter schools, although these endeavors have not really changed traditional practice either
(Cuban, 2013). Reasonably, teachers need to see other teachers modeling great instruction that is
not traditional.
Cultural setting influence #2: Teachers lack strong positive role models of technology-
infused practice. Contextual and cultural dynamics influence teachers’ perceptions about the
use of digital technology (Perrotta, 2012). Teachers can be classified as being members of a
digital generation (Li et al., 2015). Yet irrespective of educational reform, new funding, and the
influx of “student-centered” learning, teaching practice does not change pointedly regardless of
shifts in teaching with technology (Cuban, 2013). DuFour and Marzano (2011) state that PLCs
are types of collaborative team structures that can challenge traditional cultural dynamics. Yet if
leaders do not make the familiar strange, then they are not looking at unique team patterns
(Bolman & Deal, 2013). What challenges cultural patterns? First, being human is a cultural
construction in and of itself (Schein, 2010). Second, teachers—both new and veteran—need a
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 52

greater sense of connection and community to achieve personal and professional satisfaction, and
teacher learning is highly significant in cultures that are novice-oriented (Westheimer, 2008). In
concordance with sociocultural theory, learning is social in nature, not individual (Rueda, 2011;
Vygotsky, 1978). Novice and veteran teachers can cohabit the professional community equally
in integrated professional cultures that emphasize sharing and improving practice to support
teachers as learners (Westheimer, 2008). Teachers can search for common ground and can be
equal partners in peer collaborative learning (Jewett & MacPhee, 2012). Teachers need to see
peer demonstration of effective teaching practice that involves technology and the Internet.
With this understanding of stakeholder assumed influences in KMO, supported by research
and learning and motivation theories, a study to investigate how these influences impact
stakeholders, was needed. The following is an explanation of the foundation for this innovative
dissertation project, which starts with a conceptual framework.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Context
To visualize the crux of a research study the researcher needs a conceptual framework (CF)
that reveals its purpose. A theoretical framework is a broad conceptual framework that includes
theories, and scaffolds or frames a study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this sense, a conceptual
framework sets the stage for what the researcher plans to study, and reveals the researcher’s
construction of ideas that can be theorized based on research findings (Maxwell, 2013). The
framework for the study and this dissertation project was a gap analysis. Stakeholder KMO are
three separate and distinct areas of investigation in a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Examination of the interactive nature of KMO was necessary to develop sound reasoning about
the organization’s performance at large. According to Lewis (2011), stakeholders must
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 53

recognize the factors that cause change, and stakeholders must be able to convince decision-
makers to act on those factors. In short, the researcher can view KMO influences both
holistically and reciprocally to create viable solutions to performance deficiencies.
The CF for this study centered on six major components that were consistently and
continually interrelated: knowledge, motivation, organization, teacher professional identity,
teacher implementation of technology-infused instruction, and innovative professional
development. These components were essential to the dissertation study (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework for Teacher Integration of Information Communication
Technologies (ICT) in K12 Instruction.

The organizational goal was to increase teacher meaningful use of technology in the
classroom. In this innovative model, the researcher spotlighted PD as a viable avenue for
investigating teacher disinclination to participate in technology-infused instruction, specifically,
a blended learning model at the school site. The CF for this project aligned research questions
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 54

and project purpose. In a qualitative study, a conceptual framework describes concepts that are
relevant to the study, whereby relevant theory and empirical research are incorporated (Rocco &
Plakhotnik, 2009). This CF represented the flow of information, skills, desires, and resources—
or lack thereof—related to technology within the organization, including the interconnectedness
of PD, teacher professional identity, and willingness to teach using a blended learning model.
Summary
Chapter Two presented a general literature review about teaching with technology, and
research and theory that supports critical assumed influences in KMO that impact teachers.
Research on the topic of technology-infused instruction postulates that technology-infused
instruction (definition and practice) varies among teachers and learning settings, and that
technology-infused instruction must fit a human need. In other words, teachers need to develop
a relationship to digital forums and tools (Higgins, 2014; Li et al., 2015). Literature on the topic
of technology-infused instruction also defines technology in different ways. The research
literature, both general and specific to learning, motivation, and cultural theory, substantiated the
need for meaningful inquiry regarding technology-infused instruction at the school site.
That inquiry began with identification of stakeholder assumed influences. Knowledge
influences centered on shared definitions of technology, necessary training, and teacher self-
reflection of traditional views and professional identity. Motivation influences centered on self-
efficacy and expectancy value, specifically, attainment and utility related to professional identity.
Organizational influences centered on cultural models and settings with an investigation into
teacher stakeholder accountability, cultural roles, and organizational resources that connected to
professional identity. Analysis of stakeholder assumed influences in KMO was cross-sectional.
The researcher sought to understand the organization and its performance goal not only through
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 55

the “lens” of identifiable KMO influences, but also through the structures and/or implications of
interaction between these three sets of influences.
The study presented in Chapter Three (following) was based on a one-time PD innovation, to
determine how PD impacted teacher willingness to teach in online or blended learning forums.
Discovering how teachers could be better equipped to teach with ICT through online or blended
learning, warranted investigation into the purpose and effectiveness of PD in this school setting.
This investigation underscored the importance of analyzing the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers that affected the process of shifting teachers’ traditional instructional
approaches to include technology-infused practice. The researcher analyzed stakeholder
assumed influences in KMO in conjunction with a salient construct: teacher professional
identity. The researcher wanted to learn what teachers knew, what they believed, and what
organizational barriers existed that prevented visible change from traditional instruction to more
cutting-edge practice. Innovators think and act differently (Dyer et al., 2011). This study aimed
to employ the design of the right innovative PD, one that might make a difference in teacher
inclination to use ICT in the classroom for the long haul.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY—INVESTIGATING THE TEACHERS’ WORLD
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this study was to determine causes for performance gaps in technology-
infused instruction in classrooms at Senior High School X, with a specific emphasis on online
and blended learning. District X was not holding leaders and stakeholders accountable to the
professional development “target” goal of increased technology use in instruction. The study
was hinged on an innovation model whereby the researcher conducted a one-time PD training
among teachers. The purpose of the innovation effort was to engage a small subset of teachers in
the organization who might be willing to deepen their knowledge, deepen their motivation, and
challenge organizational barriers that affect technological advancements that could enhance
teacher/student performance and skill development. The researcher sought greater understanding
related to KMO factors that impacted teacher self-perception and willingness to change from a
traditional instructional model to classroom instruction that infuses technology.
Conceptual and Methodological Approach
The framework that underpinned the entire study was a gap analysis. A gap analysis is a
three-tiered process of investigation into stakeholder KMO. A gap analysis process identifies
assumed stakeholder influences in KMO, addresses gaps between an organization’s performance
goal and goal achievement, is comprised of multiple stages in the investigation process, and
offers recommended solutions, an implementation plan, and evaluation of that plan to determine
overall program effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis process for this project
required emphasis on one stakeholder group in the organization. The researcher chose teachers
and analyzed assumed influences in KMO that impacted that stakeholder group at Senior High
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 57

School X. Figure 2 is a conceptual framework (CF) that shows the gap analysis process (see
Figure 2).

Figure 2. Gap Analysis Process. Adapted from Clark and Estes (2008)
Methodology in the study and interpretations of data validated stakeholder assumed KMO
influences, which led to a profound understanding of the problem of reduced technology
integration in traditional K12 classrooms. Methodology in this study initiated greater awareness
of stakeholder experiences related to technology-infused instruction, specifically, blended
learning (explored in Chapter Four of this project). Data findings and interpretations also
suggested possible solutions related to technology-infused instruction. Based on recommended
solutions, the researcher developed a detailed implementation and evaluation plan (presented in
Chapter Five of this project). The following are the three research questions that anchored the
study, and a description of the most important component of the study—the participants.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 58

Gap Analysis Research Questions
1. How do knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers impact teacher use of
information and communication technologies (ICT), specifically, blended learning?
2. How does professional development impact teacher professional identity?
3. Can innovative delivery of professional development increase teacher inclination to
use information communication technologies (ICT) in the classroom?
The Study Participants
Teachers
The study participants were teachers at Senior High School X. Although top-down
management in the district (district level directors, school site administrators) often make
decisions about technology trainings, programs, and PD opportunities, teachers are the
stakeholders who are responsible for worthwhile instructional practice. Furthermore, at the onset
of this project, some teachers (2% of the faculty at the high school, with the support of
administrators and counselors) had already stepped outside of the box of traditional model
instruction to integrate blending learning in their high school classrooms. At that time, 71
teachers were employed at the high school. The needed population for this study was a small
subset of practitioners who may or may not have been using ICT instructionally in their
classrooms. Six of the seven teachers who volunteered to be in the study were full-time, and one
study participant was part-time, but full week. Only one study participant was male. All
teachers were Caucasian. Some study participants were new teachers, and other participants
were veterans.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 59

Criteria for Selection
The overall criteria the researcher used to select teachers for the study was regular
employment at the school building, willingness to participate in a PD innovation at the school
site, and individual representation of various subject areas. Although study participation was
voluntary, selection of participants was based on the following: the research questions, purpose
of the innovation, and finding a group of teachers who were most likely to provide insight that
would inform the problem of reduced teacher usage of ICT at the high school. Selection of
participants in a study is based on what will be most effective in providing needed data
(Maxwell, 2013). Rationale for the selection criteria included the priorities of diversity within
the teacher subset (multiple subject areas represented) and commonalities in stakeholder
characteristics such as years in the field, and the experience of teaching groups of students in one
classroom. One salient, underlying goal the researcher had in this investigation was to gather
insight about teaching perspectives from a variety of angles. The researcher chose not to select
only core subject area teachers because doing so would marginalize less spotlighted populations
such as physical education, music, art or Special Education. All subject areas matter in a school.
All teachers should be considered in an investigation of teacher use of technological forums.
Holistically, qualitative researchers develop a complex picture of the problem which involves
reporting multiple perspectives (Creswell, 2014). Therefore, some variance in the stakeholder
population for the study was advantageous to avoid cookie-cutter observations and interviews, or
bias. However, too much variance in stakeholder characteristics might have impeded the project
purpose of determining the impact of shared stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that (a)
informed the problem, and (b) affected performance goal gaps.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 60

The researcher knew the study story had to include representation of a blend of disciplines—
pods of invaluable experience, and a subset of teachers who had enough in common that the
inquiry would allow the researcher to connect the dots during data analysis. Each teacher in this
study represented a different academic department: English, math, science, special education,
social studies, and art (in no respective order), where two of these teachers represented special
education. Representation of six subject areas provided a broad perspective about assumed
influences in KMO that impacted stakeholders at the high school. Including a spectrum of
subject areas garnered insight into the needs and experiences of teachers at Senior High School
X.
The researcher selected a total of seven participants for the study, in the order that teachers
replied to an email asking for study participants. Appendix A is that email (see Appendix A).
There were two reasons for selecting a low number of teachers. One was that in qualitative
research, having a small group of participants is ideal. Another reason was that the researcher
wanted to see if there were any differences between participant responses (a) in having been in
the study for the duration, and (b) in having started the study in Stage Two, the innovative PD.
Therefore, five participants, increasing to seven participants in Stage Two, was an appropriate
number of participants for a sequential qualitative study that incorporated surveys, an innovation,
follow-up interviews, and observation. In qualitative research, the number of respondents is not
the focus, rather, the ability of each person to contribute to the development of insight about the
situation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument
(Creswell, 2014). Because the researcher in this study was the tool for gathering data, the
researcher wanted to ensure that she have enough time learning about each study participant’s
story, to increase the quality of the research. Thus, a smaller number of participants was ideal.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 61

Less was more. The researcher dug deeply into practitioners’ hearts and minds to discover how
to answer the three research questions on the table.
Studying the stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that impacted teacher use of
technology, specifically, blended learning, was necessary to determine best practices that
included technological forums and viable solutions to the problem of reduced technology use in
the organization. A systematic and exploratory inquiry into stakeholder KMO related to
technology integration was fundamental. Otherwise, District X risked maintaining a lower level
of technology use and a reduced exemplification of state standards related to technology-infused
practice. The following information is how the researcher categorized KMO for the study,
related to essential supportive theories. Included in this information is the breakdown of the
stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that the researcher addressed, and the associated
assessment strategies the researcher used.
Stakeholder Assumed Influences in Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Individual perceptions primarily were the basis of this dissertation study. The researcher
sought to understand how stakeholder assumed influences in KMO interacted with professional
identity and PD. Investigation of stakeholder assumed influences in KMO, among individual
teachers, was essential to the gap analysis. Table A is a summary of theories and stakeholder
assumed influences in KMO that impacted teachers at Senior High School X regarding
technology-infused instruction (see Table 2).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 62

Table 2
Summary of Sources About Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Assumed Influences of Performance
Sources Knowledge Motivation Organizational Barriers
Theory Lack of shared conceptual
definitions of technological
terminology.
Lack of professional training
opportunities to learn new
technological skills.
Lack of reflection on beliefs
about knowledge, traditional
instructional views, and
individual
definitions/perceptions of
“professional identity.”

Lack of belief in capability to
deliver instruction using new
technology or technological
tools/programs.
Lack of seeing technology as
linked to teaching image and
“professional identity.”
Lack of seeing technology as
an enhancement to traditional
instructional models.
Lack of accountability to
peers and supervisors, related
to technology use in the
classroom.
Cultural roles in traditional
teaching models impacting
instructional change.
Lack of funding viewed as a
barrier to increased
technological
tools/programs/trainings.
Lack of appropriate modeling
of technology-infused
practice among peers and
instructional leaders.
Literature Declarative, Procedural, and
Metacognitive Knowledge
(Kirschner, Kirschner, &
Paas, 2009; Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011)

Self-Efficacy Theory
(Bandura, 1997; 2000)
Expectancy-Value Theory—
Attainment (Eccles, 2009)
Expectancy-Value Theory—
Utility (Eccles, 2009)

Culture (Bandura, 2000;
Bolman & Deal, 2013; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2001;
Vygotsky, 1978)
Cultural models (Bandura,
2000; Kezar, 2001; Ruggerio
& Mong, 2015; Schein, 2010)
Cultural settings (Bolman &
Deal, 2011; Festinger, 1957;
Schein, 2010)

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 63

Assumed Knowledge Influences
Table 3 shows the organizational mission, performance goal, and assumed knowledge
influences for teachers at Senior High School X. Included in the table also are the assessments
that were used to determine stakeholders’ factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge related to technology use in the classroom. A gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) in
category of knowledge and skills provided insight regarding stakeholders’ present levels of
performance associated with knowledge and the organizational performance goal (see Table 3).
Table 3
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences and Knowledge Types
Organizational Mission
The mission of District X was to provide each student with the highest quality education
possible.

Organizational Global Goal
The District Office would support certificated and classified staff through differentiated
professional development opportunities as measured by an increase in professional
development opportunities previously offered.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2017 the number of teachers at the high school who use ICT meaningfully in
instruction would double, and their use of ICT in the classroom would be measured through
lesson planning each trimester.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 64

Table 3 Continued
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural,
or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
What Teachers Need to Know

Teachers collectively need to
develop shared definitions of
technological terminology
(technology, technology
training, online learning,
blended learning) to cultivate
new instructional approaches
that include technology and new
schemas about effective
classroom practice.

Declarative—
Factual/Conceptual

Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified definitions
of technological tools and
modalities, to assess prior
knowledge, with an emphasis
on defining online and blended
learning as instructional
constructs.

Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-
on-one question/answer
interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD
training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small
group question/answer
interactions with other
participants of the study, and
the researcher, post-innovation
(PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each
participant in the natural
classroom setting, to determine
declarative knowledge
consistencies or variance
among practitioners.
Furthermore, the researcher
kept a robust triangulated
journal.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 65

Table 3 Continued
What Teachers Need to Do

Teachers need technology
training to learn new
technological skills and how to
apply those skills procedurally
to increase technology-infused
instructional practices at the
school site.
Procedural Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified their
understanding of PD, and its
impact on their learning and
technological training.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-
on-one question/answer
interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD
training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small
group question/answer
interactions with all
participants of the study, and
the researcher, post-innovation
(PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed
teachers in the natural setting,
to see the procedures that
teachers used in blended
learning models, and in
traditional model instruction, to
determine if their actions
matched their written and
verbal responses. The
researcher kept a robust
triangulated journal.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 66

Table 3 Continued
What Teachers Determine
About Their Teaching Related
to Technology #1

Teachers need to identify their
beliefs about knowledge and
teaching knowledge to further
develop these schemas to
determine the most effective
classroom practices.
Metacognitive Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified what they
believed about knowledge and
teaching knowledge.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-
on-one question/answer
interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD
training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small
group question/answer
interactions with other
participants of the study, and
the researcher, post-innovation
(PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each
participant in the natural
classroom setting, to determine
how participants disseminated
knowledge, to determine if
their actions matched their
written and verbal responses.
The researcher kept a robust
triangulated journal.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 67

Table 3 Continued
What Teachers Determine
About Their Teaching Related
to Technology #2

Teachers need to identify and
evaluate individually what
traditional instructional views
and approaches can be altered to
include technology-infused
practice.
Metacognitive Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified their views,
and how those views could
change, to include use of
technology and the Internet in
the classroom.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-
on-one question/answer
interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD
training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small
group question/answer
interactions with other
participants of the study, and
the researcher, post-innovation
(PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each
participant in the natural
classroom setting, to determine
whether participants’
instructional practice matched
what they revealed in
interviews, related to their
views about what can change in
the classroom. Furthermore,
the researcher kept a robust
triangulated journal.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 68

Table 3 Continued
What Teachers Determine
About Themselves

Teachers individually must
redefine the term “professional
identity” to include technology-
infused instruction in
practitioner self-identity.
Metacognitive Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified how they
saw themselves, and revealed
individual perspectives about
“professional identity”.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-
on-one question/answer
interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD
training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small
group question/answer
interactions with all
participants of the study, and
the researcher, post-innovation
(PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each
participant in the natural
classroom setting, to determine
how participants appeared to
see themselves, based on their
instructional choices.
Furthermore, the researcher
kept a robust triangulated
journal.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 69

Assumed Motivation Influences
Table 4 shows assumed motivational influences—self-efficacy, and expectancy-value for
teachers at Senior High School X, as well as motivation assessments used in this study.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), a gap analysis in motivation addresses stakeholders’
present levels of performance associated with motivation and the organizational performance
goal (see Table 4).
Table 4
Stakeholder Motivational Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of District X was to provide each student with the highest quality education possible.
Organizational Global Goal
The District Office would support certificated and classified staff through differentiated
professional development opportunities as measured by an increase in professional development
opportunities previously offered.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2017 the number of teachers at the high school who use ICT meaningfully in instruction
would double, and their use of ICT in the classroom would be measured through lesson planning
each trimester.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 70

Table 4 Continued
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-efficacy
Teachers need to believe they are able to deliver
instruction that includes technological tools or
online forums.
Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified the technological tools,
devices, and programs that they felt
efficacious using, and in what situation or
educational setting.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with other
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
the technological tools, devices, and
programs that study participants were using.
The researcher kept a robust triangulated
journal.
Expectancy-Value Theory—Attainment Value
Teachers need to see the value of technology in
the classroom, based on self-perceptions and self-
image related to professional identity.
Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified characteristics of good
teaching, and teachers expressed whether
they believed technology was necessary to be
a good teacher.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with other
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 71

(Expectancy-Value Theory—Attainment Value) Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
whether instructional practice mirrored the
images participants claimed to have about
themselves, related to technology values.
The researcher kept a robust triangulated
journal.
Expectancy-Value Theory—Utility Value
Teachers need to see the value of using
technology in the classroom as an innovative
enhancement to traditional instructional
approaches.

Short Answer Survey
Teachers expressed whether their instruction
was adequate to service students, and
whether technology in an online or blended
learning environment could augment their
instruction.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with other
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
whether instructional practice supported
what participants said they valued related to
technology-infused instruction. The
researcher kept a robust triangulated journal.

Assumed Organization Influences
Table 5 shows the organizational mission, performance goal, and assumed organizational
influences for teachers at Senior High School X. Also included in the table are the assessments
the researcher used to determine stakeholders’ cultural models and cultural settings related to
technology use in the classroom. A gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) addressed
organizational/cultural barriers and provided insight regarding stakeholders’ present levels of
performance associated with culture and the organizational performance goal (see Table 5).
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 72

Table 5
Stakeholder Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission of District X was to provide each student with the highest quality education
possible.
Organizational Global Goal
The District Office would support certificated and classified staff through differentiated
professional development opportunities as measured by an increase in professional
development opportunities previously offered.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2017 the number of teachers at the high school who use ICT meaningfully in
instruction would double, and their use of ICT in the classroom would be measured through
lesson planning each trimester.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Teachers are not accountable to peers or
supervisors for using technology-infused
instruction.

Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified the teacher evaluation
process and model, as well as departmental
or other organizational expectations related
to technology use/ICT.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training)
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with all
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 73

Table 5 Continued
(Cultural Model Influence 1)

Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
whether instructional practice mirrors what
participants revealed about accountability
and ICT role models. Furthermore, the
researcher kept a reflective journal.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Teachers have accepted their cultural roles—
their professional identity—as traditional
classroom teachers.

Short Answer Survey
Teachers defined their role(s) as teacher, and
differentiated between traditional and virtual
settings.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with all
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
what instructional model prevails, and
whether participants deviate at all from the
teaching role(s) they defined for themselves.
Furthermore, the researcher kept a reflective
journal.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 74

Table 5 Continued
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers are provided minimal technological
tools and funding for related practice.
Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified the resources, tools,
devices, and programs that are accessible in
the building and in their classrooms, whether
more resources are desired, and what
roadblocks exist.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with all
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
what ICT resources teachers are utilizing,
when, and how. Furthermore, the researcher
kept a reflective journal.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Teachers lack strong positive role models of
technology-infused practice.
Short Answer Survey
Teachers identified who at the school site has
helped them to learn about ICT and online or
blended learning options.
Semi-Structured Interview
Teachers participated in one-on-one
question/answer interactions with the
researcher, post-innovation (PD training).
Focus Group
Teachers participated in small group
question/answer interactions with all
participants of the study, and the researcher,
post-innovation (PD training).
Observation
The researcher observed each participant in
the natural classroom setting, to determine
whether teachers have access to role models
for increased ICT use including
technological tools, devices, and programs,
and/or direct coaching in online/blended
learning forums. Furthermore, the researcher
kept a reflective journal.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 75

The Study
Summary Overview
In a gap analysis, a variety of steps support discovery about the organizational gaps under the
“lens”. This study occurred in multiple stages: an initial survey, a subsequent PD training, a
follow-up interview and focus group, and classroom observation. The study employed
qualitative data collection that investigated stakeholder assumed influences in KMO alongside
the role of an innovative PD and the central construct of professional identity. The researcher
analyzed stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that impacted teacher use of technology in the
classroom and substantiated that analysis with relevant educational theories and related literature.
Research Design
The researcher chose qualitative methodology and relied on qualitative data to understand the
why behind practitioner instructional choices and ICT usage in the classroom. Qualitative design
is emergent and flexible, and responds to changing conditions during the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative researcher is the research instrument, and the researcher is
interested in the natural setting (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). The three research questions
in this study dealt with human relationships in the workplace—what impacts knowledge,
motivation, and organization among practitioners, and how these teachers conceptualized the
purpose of PD related to themselves and to teaching in a blended learning model. To answer the
research questions, the researcher emphasized what was present in the hearts and minds of
practitioners at the school site. Fieldwork is foundational to qualitative research (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). The relationships a qualitative researcher has with participants are changing and
complex, and these relationships affect both researcher and participants as well as how the
research is accomplished (Maxwell, 2013). In qualitative research, the researcher stays focused
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 76

on learning the meaning that comes from participants; qualitative research is interpretive
(Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, building upon human capital is essential to organizational
change (Matsui, 1997). The researcher emphasized stakeholder input wholeheartedly in the data
collection process.
The type of research that most closely reflected the methodology plan was action research.
Kezar (2001) asserts that history and traditions are significant in organizational change, and that
change occurs because assumptions and beliefs are altered; nevertheless, change is not
simplistic—multiple change models (plans) exist. Teleological (examining purpose not cause)
change models include problem-solving and action research. In this study, action research
provided a greater understanding of how participants interpreted the problem of practice in the
workplace, and how engaged they were to solve this problem after the innovative one-time PD
training (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the researcher gathered data in multiple stages with
an emphasis on a small group of practitioners at the high school. Triangulation increases the
credibility of qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Concurrently, the overarching goal
of this dissertation was to tell a story about Senior High School X related to ICT use in the
classroom. Thus, the qualitative design was narrative (Creswell, 2014). Storytelling is an
evaluative leadership tool (Matsui, 1997). This story emphasized high school instruction.
Project Site Criteria
The researcher chose District X, most notably, Senior High School X, because she was a
teacher stakeholder there. The researcher used her organization for this dissertation project
because she was familiar with the environment and had access to conduct a study at the school
site. The high school was an ideal setting for the study because the researcher was investigating
teacher use of the Internet, specifically, blended learning, among K12 teachers in secondary
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 77

education. Senior High School X met several criteria for an ideal study setting. Senior High
School X was a local and accessible organization, and multiple teacher stakeholders worked
there, which increased the likelihood of voluntary study participation. Teachers were already
demonstrating efforts in blended learning instruction. Once accessibility was established, the
researcher needed to recruit stakeholders who she hoped would share openly and candidly. The
study occurred in five stages, with clear purpose.
Stage One: Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Stakeholders were teachers: on-site practitioners at the high school
building who represented individual departments.
Criterion 2. Stakeholders were qualified personnel: teachers credentialed in their
content areas who needed to be able to communicate specific information in the survey related to
their individual fields and classroom experiences.
Criterion 3. Stakeholders were aware of organizational structure: teachers familiar with
the school’s mission and effort toward technology-infused instruction, who had a general
awareness of the technological tools, devices, and programs that were available or encouraged at
the school site.
Criterion 4. Stakeholders were willing to participate in a PD innovation at the school
site.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The survey sampling strategy was purposeful, and single-stage. Single-stage sampling is a
procedure whereby the researcher has access to names in the population, and can sample
individuals directly (Creswell, 2014). After informal discussion to garner interest, seven
participants were selected for the study in a convenience sample. This sample population served
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 78

the needs of all stages of the study, again, starting with five participants in Stage One, the survey.
Part of convenience sampling is selecting participants who are available; furthermore, informal
discussions with participants can reveal who should be interviewed in depth (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The researcher emailed teachers at the high school, and engaged in email correspondence
to solidify the study group informally. Once the researcher had seven participants (email
volunteers), in the order that they had replied to the original request asking for study
participation, the researcher provided those teachers with the Informed Consent Form via email
(see Appendix B). The Informed Consent form did not require each participant’s signature, but
each study participant individually received the form.
13

The purpose of Stage One, the innovative survey (qualitative not quantitative because it was
all open-ended short-answer), was to analyze current stakeholder assumed influences in KMO.
The survey focused on theoretical constructs involving knowledge, motivation, and
organizational culture, which was part of the CF for this study (revisit Figure 1). A conceptual
framework is a system of concepts including assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that
inform research and are part of the design (Maxwell, 2013). The survey was crucial to the study
as part of this design because the survey set the groundwork for determining how Stage Two, the
PD training, impacted stakeholder thinking about technology-infused instruction and teacher
professional identity.
Stage Two: PD Training
The PD training followed the survey. Action research seeks to understand how participants
discover meaning or interpret problems in the workplace (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The

13
The Informed Consent Form was part of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study. The title of
the dissertation changed after providing study participants this form, but all other information about the study and
participation in the study was as it appears in Appendix B.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 79

purpose of the PD innovation was to generate new thinking about stakeholder usage of ICT in
the classroom, and to discover if an innovative PD approach influenced how practitioners saw
themselves as educators in this regard. All participants were part of the same PD training that
occurred at two different times.
Stage Three: Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Stakeholders were teachers: on-site practitioners at the high school
building who represented individual departments.
Criterion 2. Stakeholders were qualified personnel: teachers credentialed in their
content areas who needed to be able to communicate specific information in the survey related to
their individual fields and classroom experiences.
Criterion 3. Stakeholders were aware of organizational structure: teachers familiar with
the school’s mission and effort toward technology-infused instruction, who had a general
awareness of the technological tools, devices, and programs that were available or encouraged at
the school site.
Criterion 4. Stakeholders must have participated in the one-time PD training to be able
to share their views and impressions based on the PD training.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy remained purposeful in the informal verbal interview process.
Purposeful sampling reflects the purpose of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The same five
participants who engaged in the written survey also participated in the innovation and subsequent
interviews that included a focus group. Interviews are a primary data collection method for
qualitative research (Creswell, 2014). Interviews are used to capture the participants’ own
words, which leads to descriptive data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Interviewing allows the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 80

researcher to gain insight about participants’ perspectives (Patton, 2002). In this qualitative
study, the researcher gathered information directly from the participants, to show the impact of
the PD training on teacher perceptions related to teaching in a blended learning model,
professional identity, and stakeholder assumed influences in KMO. Innovation is about creation,
and cohesion among stakeholders. To create, one internalizes and becomes the project;
underlying goals are to find, develop and support good people who form a Braintrust, and who
own good ideas (Catmull, 2014). The study participants, together, provided a story about the
organization.
The purpose of Stage Three, the one-on-one interviews, was to analyze current stakeholder
assumed influences in KMO. The interviews focused on theoretical constructs involving
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture, which was part of the conceptual framework
for this study (revisit Figure 1). The interviews provided individual perceptions about KMO,
PD, and professional identity related to teaching online or in a blended learning model.
Stage Four: Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Stakeholders were teachers: on-site practitioners at the high school
building who represented individual departments.
Criterion 2. Stakeholders were qualified personnel: teachers credentialed in their
content areas who could communicate specific information in the survey related to their
individual fields and classroom experiences.
Criterion 3. Stakeholders were aware of organizational structure: teachers familiar with
the school’s mission and effort toward technology-infused instruction, who had a general
awareness of the technological tools, devices, and programs that were available or encouraged at
the school site.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 81

Criterion 4. Stakeholders must have participated in the one-time PD training to be able
to share their views and impressions based on the PD training.
Criterion 5. Stakeholders participated in the one-on-one interviews.
Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
A focus group followed the one-on-one interview process. The sampling strategy remained
purposeful in the informal focus group process. A qualitative researcher purposefully samples
focus groups (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, focus groups should be a target audience
whereby participants are familiar to the researcher (Krueger & Casey, 2009). A focus group
needs to be the best way to address a research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Five of the
seven participants were part of the focus group for this study.
14

The purpose of Stage Four, the focus group, was to analyze current stakeholder assumed
influences in KMO. The interviews focused on theoretical constructs involving knowledge,
motivation, and organizational culture, which was part of the conceptual framework for this
study (revisit Figure 1). Because all participants in the study experienced the same PD training,
getting feedback in a socially constructed setting where participants could share those
experiences together, was essential. This small group dynamic was ideal because teachers could
provide understanding about blended learning by exploring concepts as a collective mindset.
Stage Five: Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Stakeholders taught classes that met regularly each week, and facilitated a
directed curriculum.
Criterion 2. Stakeholders had some exposure or access to technological tools,
programs, devices, or ICT in their classrooms.

14
One participant left the study after Stage Three, which is discussed as a limitation. One study participant was out
of town during the focus group, which is discussed as a limitation.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 82

Criterion 3. Stakeholders participated in the initial short answer survey, PD training,
interview, and focus group process of the study.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
The researcher observed teachers in their familiar instructional settings. According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a principle of action research is that researchers incorporate
multiple forms of data systematically. Qualitative data collection methods include observation.
Six of the seven teachers in this study were observed in their natural teaching settings.
15

Observation is important because persons do not always do what they say they are doing;
congruence does not always exist between attitude and behavior (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Observation helps the researcher understand the context, and addresses the physical setting,
participants, activities and interactions, conversation, and subtle factors (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Furthermore, observation is a necessary step in the “innovator’s DNA model” for
generating innovative ideas (Dyer et al., 2011). Observing six teachers in their classrooms
provided additional data about stakeholder influences in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers related to ICT use in the classroom, specifically a blended learning
model. According to Creswell (2014), triangulation involves the examination of evidence from
multiple sources to build justification for themes. Observational data was a powerful part of the
triangulation process in this study. The following is a detailed explanation of the tools the
researcher used.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The following sections summarize protocols in five areas of data collection: survey, PD
training, interview, focus group, and observation. Data collection occurred in all five stages of

15
Total number of participants reflects the absence of the study participant who left the study.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 83

the study. Each stage elicited a new data collection instrument, or set of questions, and
researcher notes.
Survey
The researcher administered a written qualitative survey individually to five participants at
the start of the study (see Appendix C). The survey was administered in English. Participants
were purposefully selected (Creswell, 2014). Participants were also conveniently selected based
on their availability to volunteer for the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The survey was a
short answer questionnaire of 15 items that addressed three categories essential to the gap
analysis: KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008). Surveys may be commonly quantitative (Creswell,
2014). However, this survey took the place of an initial verbal interview. The researcher was
not focused on numbers, participant characteristics, variables, or determining cause and effect;
instead, the researcher was concerned with meaning, how participants interpreted experiences,
and how they constructed their “worlds” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The survey was comprised
of several KMO questions that reflected assumed influences on stakeholder performance (see
Tables A, B, C, and D). The survey questions were open-ended. Survey questions can be open-
ended, meaning the participant can respond originally in his/her own words (Fink, 2013). The
purpose of this initial stage of inquiry was to gather data about assumed stakeholder influences in
KMO prior to the innovative one-time PD training that followed.
The qualitative survey served as a starting point in understanding the gaps in KMO that
impacted the problem of practice, dissertation model, and themes that were coded in the findings.
To ensure credibility of the questions in the survey, the researcher used strategies appropriate to
qualitative interviewing. Interviewing allows the researcher to gain description of actions and
events (Maxwell, 2013). Learning from participants’ written responses was as valuable as what
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 84

they said verbally. The survey questions were based on stakeholder assumed influences in
KMO. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the researcher avoided interview traps, such as
double-barreled questions, closed questioning, or leading the participant. The researcher focused
on questions that elicited what practitioners knew about teaching with ICT (online and blended
learning models), what practitioners believed about teaching in a blended learning model, what
practitioners valued, and how the organization impacted teachers.
PD Training
The PD training anchored the inquiry process because the subsequent stages of the study
focused on the role of PD and the problem of practice (teacher disinclination to use ICT in the
classroom), and the role of PD and teacher professional identity. The PD training included group
questioning about stakeholder assumed influences in KMO related to traditional, online, and
blended learning, but was not an interview or focus group (see Appendix D). All seven teachers
participated in the PD. The PD was innovative because the researcher-presenter delivered the
training with the goal of teacher collaboration. The PD provided data.
Interviews and Focus Group
Seven teachers participated in the one-on-one interviews, and five teachers participated in a
focus group interview, post-innovation. The researcher transcribed audio-recorded
conversations, and the researcher used handwritten notes during the interview process as back-up
for data (Patton, 2002). The interview with each participant was open and semi-structured (see
Appendix E). Semi-structured interviews are flexibly worded and allow for variation in wording
and researcher response (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews allow the researcher to gather
data that is based on the participants’ own words (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Good interview
questions include experience and behavior questions, opinion and values, feeling questions,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 85

knowledge questions, sensory, and/or background, and demographic questions. The researcher
used an interview guide for both the one-on-one interviews and the focus group. An interview
guide identifies questions or issues that will be explored (Patton, 2002). The researcher knew
what to ask and when.
The focus group followed. Focus groups keep individuals focused on the topic of discussion,
and the moderator facilitates the discussion by using open-ended questions; furthermore, focus
groups tend to be 6-12 persons who are purposefully selected (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Additionally, focus groups allow the researcher to gain multiple perspectives whereby
participants can stimulate a range of views among one another (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The
researcher loosely presented the focus group with interview protocol materials before the
discussion began (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The researcher communicated to participants the
purpose of the focus group at the onset. Questioning in both the interviews and the focus group
was systematic with some room for probing (see Appendix F).
The researcher at Senior High School X was a teacher who was familiar with setting, the
organization, and the organizational goal and problem of practice. In other words, the researcher
knew about the topic and situation, but sought the opportunity of probing and open-ended
questioning. Because the interview with each participant was in-depth (both at the survey stage
and in the follow-up stages to the innovation), the researcher asked clear questions, and questions
that allowed for deeper introspection or development of ideas. A researcher needs to use
appropriate language that is understood by the interviewee; furthermore, probes are used to
deepen responses to questions, often by using “wh-questions” (Patton, 1987). The researcher
allowed participants to share fruitfully in both the interview and focus group stages.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 86

Observation
Observation was the final stage of the study. The researcher conducted one observation for
each study participant who had completed the first four stages of the study. The researcher
stayed in each classroom for approximately half an hour. The focus of the observation process
was to determine whether a participant’s classroom behavior aligned with what he or she had
claimed to believe, value, or needed related to the stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that
impacted performance in technology-infused instruction. The researcher approach in each
classroom setting was “observer as participant,” whereby the researcher activities were known to
the group but participation was secondary to observing (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher did not participate in any of the classroom interactions, and took field notes on the
behaviors and activities of each teacher and class (Creswell, 2014). Rich, thick description is
necessary to be able to contextualize the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To further support
rich and thick description, the researcher kept a running record of the study evolution.
Document
The researcher kept a journal of all pertinent events during all stages of the methodology.
Journal-keeping is a document option for qualitative researchers (Creswell, 2014). Recording
feelings is a method for controlling bias (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007). The journal was a day-to-day
written record of the researcher’s fieldwork at the high school. The researcher recorded the
researcher’s experiences surveying, interviewing, facilitating the PD training, and observing
participants in the study. Qualitative research is focused on how meaning is constructed
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulating across data methods and sources can improve data
quality (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). The journal connected to the CF of this study by
addressing the methodology itself.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 87

The researcher addressed all components of methodology reflectively and cohesively.
Reflection is integral to discovering meaning after conducting observations and interviews
(Patton, 2002). The journal was a set of words and ideas to strengthen narrative findings. The
journal document was a contribution to thematic coding in data analysis.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is a lengthy and insightful procedure. Data analysis in this study
required the researcher to visit and revisit potential themes that brought the project full circle by
addressing and digging into the research questions, and the data that could answer them.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), data analysis should occur both during and after data
collection. Making notes in the margins and making sense of the data, one interview or
observation at a time, will lead to codes and themes, so that the researcher will be able to connect
study data to study purpose. Data analysis is a step-by-step process. The researcher needed a
surefire plan for patterned construction.
Purpose
Qualitative data analysis was an opportunity for the researcher to build distinctive ideas. The
researcher questioned what data findings were essential to keep and questioned what the data
really meant—while in the process of data collection. The researcher chose a narrow focus, and
sought to draw connections immediately (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The step-
by-step process started with raw data, moved to organization and preparation of data analysis,
and included reading all data, coding by hand, determining themes and description to interrelate
those themes and description (the project design is a narrative), leading, finally, to interpretations
of the meaning of themes and descriptions (Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, categorization was
indispensable to the process. This meant that the researcher began analysis by identifying units
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 88

or segments of data that seemed important or meaningful in some way, and could be labeled as
organizational, substantive, and/or theoretical (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher categorized
ideas in response to the purpose of the research, ensuring that categories are exhaustive, mutually
exclusive, sensitive to the data, and conceptually congruent (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher was also mindful not to use all gathered information in the study (Creswell, 2014).
Researcher selectivity of relevant data was propitious.
Language Analysis
Qualitative data was also an opportunity for the researcher to uncover meaning in language—
the study participants’ views stated in their words—and in metaphors. Metaphors are
descriptively rich data-condensing tools (Miles et al., 2014). Creating metaphors helps a leader
to escape “idea ruts,” and to have the potential for seeing a situation with original perspective
(Dyer et al., 2011). To illustrate, verbatim transcripts of interviews provide “rich data” because
the actual words take center stage, not the researcher’s interpretation of what is significant
(Maxwell, 2013). The more language richness the researcher could thread in development of the
narrative, the better. At this stage of the inquiry and gap analysis process, the researcher
considered all words in all places of the data, to construct eventual themes and findings that
could lead to solutions. This included identification of metaphors that participants used to
describe themselves and their teaching experiences.
Time Frame
Data analysis for this study occurred over a span of six months, March 2017 to August 2017,
with September 2017 marked for revision and refinement of the final project presentation. Data
analysis began at the onset of data collection, in March. The study was comprised of five stages.
The researcher maintained one notebook (journal) that contained notes about all events during
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 89

the data collection process. Qualitative studies involve first-person accounts of experience told
in story, which supports the notion of narratives as a popular source of data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This journal was a compilation of numbered pages: research process notes, analytic
memos, observation, and researcher reflective notes at each juncture of the study. In other
words, each experience with data collection was recorded in the researcher’s own handwriting as
a running log of (a) paraphrase, and (b) reflection. Research design is an interplay between the
researcher’s project and intrusion in participants’ lives (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher
captured as much of that interplay as possible in journal record-keeping throughout each of the
five stages: initial survey, PD training, one-on-one interviews, focus group, and classroom
observation. Field notes were highly descriptive, and sometimes, from memory when the
researcher was also a PD presenter. As an observer, a researcher will notice aspects of the
setting that have become routine to the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher
maintained an observer role throughout data collection and data analysis, by remaining
inquisitive, objective, detail-oriented, and thorough.
Data analysis occurred in multiple stages that were intertwined. Qualitative data is
understood in context (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative data analysis occurs at the same time as data
collection and the write-up of findings (Creswell, 2014). The researcher organized the process
into recognizable phases.
Phases of Analysis
In the first phase of data analysis (and continued throughout the study), the researcher wrote
diligently in her journal. The journal reflected the entire process of data collection and research
notes, from start to finish. Various components such as analytic memos and classroom
observation notes helped the researcher analyze sets of data, which supported the development of
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 90

in vivo/a priori codes, analytic codes, patterns, themes, and eventually, findings. The researcher
wrote paraphrases, made marginal notes, stated observations, indicated potential connections or
patterns, and asked written questions during data collection. The journal served as a productive
component of the triangulation of data.
In subsequent phases of data analysis, the researcher analyzed language. One strategy was to
act as investigator using various analytic angles or lenses. According to Corbin and Strauss
(2008), qualitative data analysis involves the application of analytic tools such as comparison,
questioning, identifying various meanings of words, the flip-flop technique, drawing upon
personal experience, looking at language, looking for the negative case, and thinking in terms of
metaphors and similes. Additionally, incidents in data can be compared with other incidents in
data where the researcher can identify conceptual similarities, categories, and themes. In the
second phase of data analysis, the researcher began to apply these analytic tools, and these tools
were applicable to all subsequent phases of data analysis. The third phase of data analysis was
designated for transcription. The researcher transcribed all seven interviews and the focus group
interview, and used the written data from the PD training and focus group to triangulate data in
those stages of the study. The fourth stage of data analysis was coding, using hard copy
transcripts, all participant written responses, Microsoft Excel to create initial codebooks, and
handwritten coding with color-coded sticky notes. The fifth stage of data analysis included
coding, through identification of themes that lead to findings that became the study discussion
that answered the original research questions.
Methods
One-on-one interviews and focus group data were accessible through audio-recordings that
the researcher conducted with the consent of each participant in those stages of the study. The
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 91

researcher took handwritten notes during the interview process, but the researcher relied on the
audio recordings for transcription. Each audio recording was transcribed and labeled by
participant number, date, and time of the interview. The focus group audio recording also was
labeled by date and time. Interview protocols should contain headings with date, place,
interviewer, and interviewee information (Creswell, 2014). Researcher observation notes during
the focus group were recorded in the journal. Researchers must write reflections, descriptive
notes, and/or notes on behavior immediately following interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher finalized transcriptions after leaving the note-taking and data collection field.
CF Revisited
The most salient effort of the data analysis process was researcher willingness to shift
conceptual understanding related to the crux of project inquiry. The CF could change based on
the concepts that participant responses unearth. The CF in this project was a consistent visual
image that represented the study itself, reflective of the interconnected constructs the researcher
investigated. These constructs reflected data that participants provided, that were relevant and
real to the project setting. These conceptual relationships continually could be defined and
reshaped until they mirrored participant voice adequately to tell a “story” about that setting, and
the stakeholder experiences within it. The researcher searched for those meanings that
participant language revealed in each stage of the study. Participant perspectives inform their
actions; meanings and perspectives are real, not theory (Maxwell, 2013). The primary goal of a
qualitative study is to interpret meanings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher took into
consideration the unfolding of thought and consequent discovery of meaning during each stage
of data collection, and the researcher revisited the CF for utmost accuracy throughout this
process. The researcher-participant relationship is complex and changing; furthermore, in data
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 92

analysis, the researcher moves from descriptive categories (participant words) to theoretical
categories (a framework) (Maxwell, 2013). The CF was integral to telling the story about
teaching with the Internet at this school site. Codebooks were paramount to the solidification of
a strong CF, and the presentation of meaningful, reportable findings.
Coding Process
The researcher developed three codebooks—one for the initial stages of data collection, one
that went deeply into the interview transcripts and written remarks with the identification of
analytic codes, patterns, and themes, and a final codebook that connected themes to findings.
Codes sensitize the reader to information, feelings, and ideas that frequently arise in the dataset,
and these codes must be categorized to make sense of the data (Harding, 2013). The researcher
used a priori codes that came from the project CF to address stakeholder assumed influences in
KMO related to teaching with the Internet in a blended learning model. A priori codes related to
the CF centered on the construct of professional identity. In the second, more developed
codebook, the researcher identified with supporting evidence several analytic codes and patterns,
emergent into themes. The researcher then created a master codebook that threaded these themes
to support findings. Themes are first interrelated, then interpreted (Creswell, 2014). Themes
were used as pillars for approximately four strong findings that answered the three research
questions, and could be substantiated with evidence. The development of a priori codes evolving
into themes was extensive and progressive, and the researcher used all three codebooks to
support data analysis discussion. In short, the researcher anticipated that coding of several
constructs was warranted: the running theme of professional identity in K, M, and O, the impact
of professional identity on professional development, and the impact of similarities and/or
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 93

differences in responses based on study participant entry into the study itself at various stages
(two participants entered in Stage Two, whereas all other participants entered in Stage One).
To account for typicality, the researcher noted the number of times that participants shared
similar answers in exact single words or phrases that stood out in the data. Because this was a
qualitative study, the researcher was less concerned with numbers, and more concerned with
frequency of response types that could support patterns. The researcher coded the number of
times that stakeholders repeated certain words and/or phrases in the second codebook. The
presence of certain repeated phrases indicated points of interest for the researcher because these
were concepts that were important to stakeholders collectively. This language lead to the
categorization of ideas and, ultimately, the story’s resolution. What participants chose to share
was indispensable in the inquiry process. Repeated words, phrases, and remarks were integral to
the development of patterns that lead to themes and findings.
To summarize, the researcher made the discussion findings-based by organizing themes and
including appropriate data. The researcher anticipated a handful of findings that were supported
by evidence to answer the three research questions. Data analysis occurred at the onset of data
collection, in March 2017, and data analysis continued through August 2017. Findings were
written in Chapter Four of the dissertation. Findings were organized and categorized based on
the themes that support them. The researcher envisioned a lengthy data analysis section,
including multiple paragraphs for each finding explanation. Each finding explanation included
relevant evidence that addressed constructs in the CF and supported answers to the inquiry.
Evidence was appropriately framed with contextual information, quoted evidence, and language
analysis that centered on the conceptual interpretation of data, and discovery of meaning related
to the project purpose.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 94

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Researcher credibility was essential to this study. In qualitative research, humans are the
primary source for data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To increase
credibility, the researcher used multiple avenues for data collection. Triangulation is a strategy
that supports credibility. Triangulation that involves participants in this study included
interview, a focus group, and observation. Journal-keeping on the part of the researcher also
supported triangulation (Creswell, 2014). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), observation
and interviewing strengthens the validity of a qualitative study because researchers look to
describe and explain the situation based on participant experiences. Although the qualitative
researcher cannot capture an “objective truth” or “reality” literally, the notion of validity is
retitled as credibility in this type of investigation and is hinged upon whether findings are
congruent with reality—a fairly new way of thinking about qualitative research in academic
settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Generalizability of findings is also a challenge for the
qualitative researcher.
Credibility stemmed from study strength—the inclusion of valuable data and the search for
loopholes. The researcher needed to aim for internal generalizability, which meant that
sampling supported the purpose of the whole case, and was diversified (Maxwell, 2013). The
researcher planned to include a sample size who represented the larger population of the school,
by seeking study participants who reflected multiple instructional departments. Doing so,
broadened the scope of participant perspective on technology infused-instruction and did not
limit data to the perceptions of core subject area teachers. Addressing discrepant information
also increased the credibility of the research. Including discrepant cases can highlight evidence,
and can support the adequate amount of time required for data collection (Merriam & Tisdell,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 95

2016). According to Creswell (2014), if data reveal that different perspectives do not mesh, the
researcher can address the evidence about a theme in question to show how some information
might contradict the case that the researcher has built for that theme. The researcher in this study
addressed any information that could be used as discrepant in the thematic coding. Additionally,
member checking in the interview process can increase qualitative credibility (Maxwell, 2013).
In this study, the researcher used member checking to safeguard that participants’ verbal
responses were clear and accurate. The researcher avoided misinterpretation as much as possible
by drawing conclusions about meaning in a manner that maintained the integrity of the
participants and displayed what the participants intended to share. Furthermore, peer review and
examination is a powerful strategy for checking the process of the study, congruence of findings,
and possible interpretations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher sought expert opinion
from members of the dissertation committee serving this project, and from peer review.
16
In
summary, the researcher to recognized and addressed potential holes in the presentation that
could reduce credibility. Use of more than one data collection method and approach, and
collegial feedback supported credibility and trustworthiness in the methodology.
Trustworthiness was essential to this study. Trustworthiness can be a challenge in qualitative
research because the researcher must show that findings match data. Qualitative results should
be consistent with collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). From an organizational leadership
perspective, developing trust among a group takes time (Catmull, 2014). The researcher as a
leader of the investigation needs to be aware that trust building in qualitative efforts is multi-
faceted. Observation is description, and is not participant perspective—that is where
interviewing comes in; the marriage of two solid methods, coupled with additional methods for

16
The dissertation committee was comprised of three full-time University of Southern California (USC) faculty
members.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 96

triangulating data will lead to more comprehensive data (Maxwell, 2013). The study had to be
substantial enough to “carry weight” (to be reliable). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
in the social sciences reliability is a difficult concept to demonstrate because it typically is a
quantitative feature. However, qualitative research can focus on dependability—aiming not to
replicate data but rather to analyze it and to create systems of triangulation, investigator position,
and an audit trail that can substantiate the results. In other words, triangulation can lead to
consistency of that data, the researcher can provide details on findings and data analysis, and the
researcher can keep a journal of the inquiry process.
Validity and reliability in the qualitative sphere (coined here as credibility and
trustworthiness) also connect to researcher bias. Determining plausibility of findings where
validity threats must become implausible is paramount to qualitative research; plausibility cannot
be based on researcher supposed conclusions, instead, the goal is that a robust array of methods
and analysis fortifies the conclusions as objectively-driven (Maxwell, 2013; Miles et al., 2014).
A researcher’s position, also called reflexivity (how a researcher is affected by research and
impacts research), comes into play in this effort. To avoid and reduce bias, the researcher must
critically self-reflect (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the researcher acknowledged
personal feelings, thoughts, and reactions to data, but was committed not to include personal
views in the data collection and data analysis in research findings. Moreover, the researcher was
determined to maintain personal integrity, and had a responsibility for study objectivity. Trust is
a tool for driving out fear (Catmull, 2014). The researcher worked toward creating a
presentation that was trustworthy, where the findings were acceptable to critical academic circles
because they honestly reflected the views of the stakeholder participants.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 97

The researcher also considered all the forms of bias that could arise. Analytic bias can
weaken and invalidate findings. Forms of that bias include: holistic fallacy, elite bias, personal
bias, and going native (Miles et al., 2014). The researcher refused to interpret patterns that were
not there, emphasize more articulate answers from high status participants and negate
information from participants who could be considered lower status, drive data based on personal
agenda, or be swayed by participant perspectives. Succumbing to researcher bias would have
been a damaging pitfall that could have impacted credibility and trustworthiness negatively at
any stage of the study.
The survey, interview, focus group, and observation data were not altered for any reason to
suit the researcher’s interests or goals. All data was an honest record of what the researcher read,
saw, and heard. The reflective journal was a document that included the raw feelings and take-
aways on the part of the researcher, but did not overshadow participant responses to create a
prejudiced story. The researcher did not lead participants nor offer interpretations and meanings
that participants did not actually write or say. The researcher remained as objective as possible
despite the striking reality that the researcher was also a stakeholder teacher in the organization
who was highly familiar with the challenges and experiences of K12 classroom teaching at this
school. The interviewer-respondent interaction was complicated, and the researcher understood
the impact of insider status on bias, predisposition, and attitude (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher’s careful attention to credibility and trustworthiness also supported the researcher’s
effort to be an ethical investigator. Once prejudice is removed, what can be considered “true”
becomes apparent (Denning, 2011). The inclusive quality of the study rested upon delivery of a
genuine narrative supported by the researcher’s commitment to authenticity—and ethical
behavior.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 98

Ethics
Researcher Ethics
The researcher’s primary responsibilities were approved by the organizational institution
(District X and Senior High School X) and the University of Southern California (USC): to
conduct a human subjects study, to gather credible data, and to ensure confidentiality and safety
among study participants. Ethical practice is in the researcher’s control because the practice is
based on the researcher’s values and ethics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher’s position
in qualitative data gathering was objective. During this process, the researcher did not coerce
participants, break trust in the organization, nor alter data in any way. According to Glesne
(2011), the researcher needs to negotiate carefully and respectfully the limits of researcher-
researched relationships, based on openness and informed consent. Furthermore, deception is
wrong, and the researcher should eliminate all unnecessary risks. The investigative situation was
unique. The researcher did not give the impression that the study was informal research by
negotiating entry with gatekeepers and slipping into the study setting nonchalantly (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). Researchers need to be straightforward with participants, providing them with a
scope of all that could occur during the study, as well as the opportunity to accept or decline
participation (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Ethically, the researcher communicated via email to all
stakeholders—gatekeepers and participants—the sequence of events and the purpose for the
study, which reflected a candid researcher role. At District X, the high school principal and the
district superintendent were the supervisors who approved this dissertation study. The researcher
was a teacher stakeholder at the high school. The researcher clearly communicated to study
participants that new researcher role.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 99

A researcher’s role is not simplistic. It includes identifying researcher reflexivity, bias,
values, and personal background such as gender, culture, and SES that can affect interpretations
of the study (Creswell, 2014). The researcher’s goal consistently was to maintain objectivity
while facilitating data collection and analysis. Participants might have had assumptions about
the researcher or may have wanted to know how their responses would be interpreted. SES was
not likely an issue in this study because the researcher and participants share the same race and
general income, but the researcher did consider gender, bias, and cultural implications.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative researchers also magnify integrity to
emphasize credibility. In this study, the researcher addressed participant concerns and/or
questions in a timely manner, and objectively. When those concerns arose, the researcher
redirected participants’ attention to the purpose of the study, the dissertation model used
(innovation), and the strategies for authenticity that were in place, such as probing for clarity
during interviews, or member checking. The researcher acknowledged to participants her
presence of a dual role in the organization—that of teacher and researcher. The researcher also
communicated to participants in the informed consent document as well as prior to any data
collection sessions, that the designated role at the time of data collection was researcher, not
colleague, friend, or fellow teacher—that those conversations and interactions were separate
from the study, and were off-record. Disclosing a desire to remain neutral was paramount.
Ethically, as with credibility and trustworthiness, the researcher avoided bias to maintain the
integrity of the study. Trustworthiness stems from ethics in the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This meant avoiding personal interjection into the interviewing process, skewing data, or
interpreting data in a subjective manner. In data collection, honesty in an interview does not
mean the researcher shares everything or volunteers opinions on what is discussed (Rubin &
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 100

Rubin, 2012). In data analysis, multiple sources of analytic bias impact researcher ethical
behavior (Miles et al., 2014). Researcher bias sours the validity of qualitative conclusions. The
researcher was forthcoming about possible bias, to show that researcher values and expectations
did not influence study conduct and conclusions (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, the researcher
could have been biased by creating a case for the need for technology-infused instruction, being
an advocate for online and blended learning, or by corroborating with colleagues about
deficiencies in the organization related to technology advancements that impacted instruction.
The researcher was careful not to engage in side conversations with participants, infuse opinion
into interviews or the focus group, nor probe with questions that could lead the study in a
direction of proving researcher values. Rigorous thinking in methods and analysis can prevent
bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher was accountable for maintaining ethical practice
in the delivery and presentation of the study in its duration.
A dimension of ethical accountability is relationship to participants. One angle in ethical
accountability that is relevant to researcher-participant interactions is considering human
subjects’ rights. Ethical accountability in terms of rights involves promises, protection of
privacy, and protection from harm (Velasquez et al., 2011). The researcher did not “harm”
participants. The researcher had an obligation to participants, to keep promises and agreements
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Study participants were study volunteers. This association was
preserved. Participants were valuable sources of information who provided insight about the
dissertation focus—and the organization. The researcher recognized that participant willingness
to join the study was a privilege. The researcher was dependent upon this participation, and did
not forfeit positive relationships by driving a personal agenda.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 101

Ethical Process for Study Completion
The plan for the qualitative study was an ethical process. Details about the number of
participants and groups, and timelines are essential (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The initial stage
of the process was to gain approval from the dissertation committee who determined whether the
study and dissertation plan were sound and whether the doctoral student could proceed and
advance to doctoral candidate. Following this initial stage, the researcher obtained informed
consent among the teacher stakeholder participants. Informed consent protected these
participants. The researcher submitted the study plan to the USC Institutional Review Board
(IRB). The federal government mandates IRBs at all universities that receive funding for human
subjects research (Glesne, 2011). In case the researcher could not solidify all human subjects
before the study began, the researcher also needed to know how the organization interpreted
federal regulations. In qualitative studies, sometimes determining who the researcher needs to
interview evolves (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The researcher let selected participants know that
their participation in the study was voluntary, that their identities were confidential, and that they
had a legal right to withdraw from the study at any time (Glesne, 2011). Full disclosure to
participants about the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, and how the results of the
study would be used in the dissertation, supported ethical practice prior to conducting the study.
Ethics and Data Collection
Surveys. Surveys tend to be quantitative. A survey design usually falls into the quantitative
arena, and describes trends numerically (Creswell, 2014). However, surveys can also be
qualitative. Qualitative research focuses on descriptions, specific situations, or people (Maxwell,
2013). In this sense, the survey was part of the interviewing stage of the study because it was a
written set of answers that revealed participant perspective about technology-infused instruction.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 102

Qualitative interviewing is about participant perspective (Patton, 2002). The researcher held the
key to ethics in the study because the investigator was responsible for data collection and
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All components of interviewing amplified the researcher’s
responsibility to maintain an ethical position.
Interviews. The interview process was anchored in conversational data, which made data
sensitive, especially when transcribed. Participants engaged in a variety of interview experiences
that the researcher facilitated. Ethically, the researcher was respectful, frank, and non-
threatening (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). One goal the researcher had was to build trust and rapport
among participants and between researcher and participant. However, gaining trust from others
takes time (Catmull, 2014). To the researcher’s advantage, researcher and participants already
know one another personally. Using established acquaintanceship or friendship was a starting
point to encourage trust among participants. Essential components to preserving ethics in the
study were maintaining a professional demeanor and ensuring that participant responses were
welcomed and mattered. Participants needed to feel comfortable in the study arrangement. This
included reminding participants that they were in a study, especially if answers in conversation
started to feel too friendly or collegiate instead of study-centered (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Participants were also informed that their responses would be reported correctly. The researcher
used an audio recorder for one-on-one interviews and the focus group session, after gaining
permission from participants. Qualitative data consists of qualitative audio and visual materials
(Creswell, 2014). Audio-recordings were used for the sole purpose of creating thematic
connections from transcripts, and were stored securely to protect participant confidentiality. The
researcher also took notes during interviews to complement the audio recordings, and as backup
for data collection.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 103

Accuracy in interview data collection was significant to ethical practice. According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), collection of data and dissemination of findings are two areas that
can cause ethical dilemmas. Interview transcripts need to reflect the integrity of participants’
responses, and observation notes and journal reflections need to be objective. In other words,
data needs to be credible and trustworthy. Triangulation of data can support this effort.
Promises matter also. If the researcher offers to have participants review transcripts for
accuracy, follow-through is imperative (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Bad interviewing undermines
credibility (Patton, 2002). The researcher followed the same seven high school teachers through
a variety of qualitative research stages: survey, innovative PD training, one-on-one semi-
structured interviews, one focus group, and classroom observations.
Observation. Observation is a data collection method that keeps participants in the loop if
the researcher observes them ethically. Observing participants secretively is another ethical
dilemma (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher disclosed to all study participants the
reasons for observation, when observation would occur, and the purpose of observation in the
study. Privacy and the good will of participants were not to be abused. Furthermore, the
researcher needed to balance the level of observation and participation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Boundaries and a detailed plan were vital in maintaining an ethical approach. In addition to
ethics, the researcher considered assumptions, limitations, and delimitations.
Assumptions
One assumption was that the researcher had a “good faith” relationship with study
participants. The researcher knew study participants as colleagues, and had no reason to believe
that any study participant was not being truthful in responses, but because the study was wholly
qualitative, study participants were sharing their views in their own words. This was positive,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 104

but the researcher had no way of knowing what study participants may have chosen not to share,
which may have impacted data analysis and findings if additional (unvoiced) views could have
challenged or brought in new themes during the data coding process. The researcher assumed
the study participants self-reported with integrity.
Another assumption was that the study participants revealed in their classroom practice what
they would have revealed during a typical day of instruction. The researcher believed that the
teacher-student interactions she saw during classroom observation for each participant were
genuine and reflective of daily practice, and remained unaltered in the presence of a researcher
taking notes.
Limitations
Administrative Pushback and Internet Connectivity
One limitation was due to lost time and Internet connectivity during the PD training day,
which reduced the quality of participation during Stage Two of the study. During the data
collection process, the school principal cut time from the researcher-presenter the morning of the
PD training. The principal knew of the PD training well in advance because it had been
approved and scheduled months earlier. The principal had phoned the researcher-presenter one
day before the PD training about plans for a spontaneous, mandatory, early morning all-faculty
meeting (to last only 10 minutes). The “meeting before a meeting” required researcher-presenter
and study participant attendance. Because the researcher-presenter lost 10 minutes of time due
to a delayed PD training start time, study participants did not have enough time to freely peruse
the Schoology website, which was part of the training plan. The sudden faculty meeting could
have occurred on another morning, and the principal could have emailed the information to
teachers instead. Additionally, during the second PD training in the afternoon, no time was lost
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 105

but the school site lost Internet connection. Teachers could not access the Internet at all during
the second PD training. The researcher-presenter conducted both PD trainings as completely as
possible, but study participants who were not already familiar with the Schoology website did
not have the opportunity to create a log-in and view the website, which may have impacted their
knowledge and motivation about the LMS in subsequent stages of the study.
Varied Teaching Experience
Another limitation was varied teaching experience among practitioners in the study. Novice
teachers were still learning how to run a classroom effectively. They did not have the scope of
experience that would allow them to see how to fit a new teaching approach into an already
established one. They had less background, and fewer teaching strategies and classroom
examples to share. This was a limitation because beginning teachers had not experienced a wide
range of PD trainings, nor had they worked with the district’s technology department for long.
Therefore, these teachers were unable to draw from on-the-job experience to determine with
authority and/or expertise what comprises a strong PD about technology-infused instruction.
Focus Group and Classroom Observation Participation
An additional limitation was the absence of two study participants during Stage Four of the
study. These two teachers had provided a substantial amount of data in previous stages of the
study. Their contributions had been consistent. Losing two study participants, one of whom
came in during Stage Two, impacted findings in that (a) their voices were not part of the focus
group discussion, and (b) only one of the two teachers who came in at Stage Two could be
compared to other participants’ voices who had begun the study in Stage One. The absence of
the two participants in the focus group impacted data directly because these teachers may have
(a) agreed with their peers, (b) disagreed with their peers, or (c) added additional insights that
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 106

could have been included in data analysis. In addition, one of these participants did not return to
the study at all, which impacted classroom observation for that participant. The researcher was
unable to triangulate data for that participant to determine if what she had said matched what she
was doing in her classroom regarding technology-infused instruction.
Generalizability
A final limitation involved generalizability. Due to the qualitative research design, the
researcher investigated only one high school in the region and a small subset of study
participants. The results and findings of this study were powerful, but may be solely unique to
this organization because the “story” belongs to these individuals. Another set of teachers at this
school may have voiced similar or dissimilar concerns, which might have also been the case for
another set of teachers in the region, in a different school. Furthermore, the story focused on
what was going on at District X, specifically, Senior High School X. The researcher was unable
to ascertain whether the study results and findings would be true for an alternate set of teachers,
school, or educational organization.
Delimitations
Population Sampling
One delimitation is that the researcher could have chosen to investigate students, but chose
teachers as the stakeholder of focus. The reason the researcher chose teachers was because
teachers make choices that impact students and not the other way around. Teachers determine
student learning outcomes and teaching approaches, in short, what happens pedagogically in
each set of those four walls.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 107

Research Design
Another delimitation is that the researcher selected qualitative over quantitative, or mixed-
methods for inquiry. The researcher chose qualitative because she wanted to tell a story—to
provide dimension and depth to the why behind teacher use of the Internet, specifically blended
learning. Teacher voice mattered. Numbers and a larger subset of teachers would have provided
data about stakeholder assumed influences in KMO, but would not have gotten into the hearts
and minds of those individuals in the same way. Following a small group of teachers from start
to finish in a five-stage study and integrating an innovative PD training provided a valuable
window into the lives of these practitioners. Some of that voice would have been lost if the
researcher had chosen to translate experience numerically instead of in language. Furthermore,
the purpose of the project centered on new discovery—disruption. The researcher-participant
relationship in this study demanded human connection and interaction from start to finish.
Conceptual Decisions
The researcher chose not to address two constructs in the literature: teacher resistance, and
the denotation of “self” versus “identity”. The researcher chose not to highlight teacher
resistance because the goal of this project was innovation—an inquiry into what can happen in
the organization based on an exploration of current stakeholder assumed influences in KMO.
Teacher resistance was a possible angle for thematic development during data collection and data
analysis. General literature supports teacher resistance to technology integration (Agocs, 1997;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). However, the researcher was more concerned with how teachers
shaped their identities and how that could lead to instructional changes in practice. Teacher
professional identity was a prominent feature in the literature. Rodgers and Scott (2008) make a
distinction between “self” and “identity”, whereby teacher “identity” evolves from
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 108

developmental capacities of “self”. More research is needed on the relationship of “self” and
“identity” (Beijaard et al., 2004). An investigation into the formation of “self” and into the
developmental branches of “self” was beyond the scope of this project although the researcher
used “self-image” synonymously with “identity” in her discussion.
Summary
Chapter Three covered much ground about the methodology for this project. It presented the
project purpose, the gap analysis framework, the research questions, the stakeholder group for
the study, criteria for participant selection, stakeholder assumed influences in KMO, data
collection and instruments, data analysis approaches, researcher credibility, trustworthiness,
ethics, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. The research design was solely qualitative.
The researcher wore “many hats”: facilitator, investigator, PD presenter, notetaker, interviewer,
record-keeper, and reporter. The following are the key findings that this study provided.
Findings were requisite—they brought the teachers’ story to light.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 109

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS—THE TEACHERS’ VOICES
Setting
Senior High School X is a newer high school building. It is massive, has tall ceilings, a
commons area, an auditorium, a gym, and various other rooms used for instruction. The main
building is two levels. There are six stairwells, and one elevator near the main office. Most
classrooms have at least one windowed wall that looks out to an adjoining hallway. The school
is bright during all four seasons, and spacious. Departments are housed together. One adjacent
building is for agriculture and shop. There are two large parking lots on either side of the school,
and on the west wing, sits the football field, and a tennis court. In winter, these parking lots are
covered in thick, uneven ice. Wind often caroms through the spaces of the buildings.
Sometimes, wind is so strong, getting a car door to open is difficult. Dashing into the building to
get out of a wind, rain, or hailstorm is common. Spring often stays cold until the end of the
school year in May. In sharp contrast, when school starts in August the weather is hot.
Classrooms do not have windows that open. In most classrooms, teachers have the usual
standard items: whiteboards, teacher desk, desktop computer, counter space, cupboards,
telephone, flag, student desks and/or tables, stools, chairs, and other types of furniture that would
define the subject area such as bookshelves, lab counters, music stands, art tables, physical
education equipment, or welding equipment. Many classrooms also have SMART Boards. The
researcher included this description to provide a context for understanding the environment of
the participating stakeholders in the study.
Participating Stakeholders
Practitioners at Senior High School X reflected a typical description of high school
educators—organized, conservatively dressed, and compartmentalized in units of space:
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 110

classrooms. The seven teachers who participated in the study had different backgrounds
educationally and professionally, but nearly all study participants were from the region, and
some had been raised in the farming community where the high school is located.
17
Estelle was
a veteran English teacher who lived on her family’s land, and she had never married. She was a
graduate of the high school. Estelle taught mostly seniors. Hazel had been teaching in social
studies for some time, also seniors. She had three children, one of whom had graduated from the
high school. Hazel was also responsible for Student Council. Heather had been a science
teacher for 14 years. She had two children, and she had taken some time off from teaching when
her son was born, prior to her transfer from the junior high school to the high school. Constance
had taught math in another state, and she had also worked a local university. She was a new
mom. Matthew taught several art classes, and he was also responsible for the class, Yearbook.
Betty and Stacey were first-year teachers in special education. Betty had been a paraprofessional
for several years prior to earning her degree, and Stacey had come from another profession.
Both Betty and Stacey serviced students in Resource classes. All seven study participants taught
daily at the high school. Constance was part-time, and she left the school building each day at 1
p.m. to take care of her child.
Survey Results
Introduction
Teachers were disconnected from one another and from the organization. This disconnect
was visible in all three areas of the gap analysis: KMO. Some teachers directly stated this
experience, whereas other teachers revealed disconnect in their data responses. Disconnect
centered on age, experience, accessibility, teaching philosophy, and values. Disconnect was

17
Study participant names are pseudonyms to maintain anonymity.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 111

manifest in what teachers reported about the following relationship dynamics: colleague to
colleague, department member to department member, teacher to faculty, department to school,
and teacher to administrator/district. Cohesion among practitioners, regarding teaching with the
Internet, and more specifically, in a blended learning model, did not exist. However, some
teachers were strong advocates for the school wide change.
Results
Five teachers completed the initial survey, which was qualitative. The survey served as an
innovative component to this research project because the survey did not provide quantifiable
statistics. Instead, the researcher administered the survey over email as a series of questions that
required short-answer responses. This first stage of the study was not an actual interview
because the researcher did not interact with study participants while they responded. Therefore,
the instrument was in fact, a survey that emphasized words not number of times. The researcher
found some similarities and differences among respondent answers in the categories of KMO.
Data validated all stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that had caused gaps in performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The survey provided baseline data, pre-innovation, to get a sense of
where teachers were in the process of teaching in a blended learning model. The following are
the results that were most striking.
18

Knowledge results (Part I of survey). Respondents answered seven questions that
investigated assumed influences in teacher knowledge about online and blended learning. When
answering the definition questions, the five respondents mirrored one another’s replies slightly,
but also differed in viewpoints or explanation. Estelle, Hazel, Heather, Constance, and Stacey
defined “technology” as having to do with physical tools in the classroom: cell phones, iPads,

18
Not all data results are shared in this section. The researcher used evidence from surveys also to triangulate data
in the findings.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 112

Smart Board, a device that aids in learning, computers, and video. Stacey was the only teacher
who described technology in a “living” sense, as “collaborative efforts with other teachers”.
When asked about ICT, Constance’s and Stacey’s responses indicated that they had copied and
pasted a definition from websites. Heather defined ICT as electronic products that are rapidly
emerging. Estelle associated ICT with search engines, data bases, and communication that goes
through email or social media sites. Hazel described ICT as a device or medium that is used to
communicate information to intended or unintended audiences. When asked about connecting
instruction to the Internet, all respondents had different answers: to survey students, create a
blog for later streaming, use the gradebook system, connect to Schoology, and project-based
learning. These answers were more similar than respondents’ thoughts about teaching with the
Internet.
Teachers defined online and blended learning in different ways. Some teachers answered that
online and blended learning models were addressed at the school site through a virtual school
setting where students enrolled in those classes, and through Schoology and the computer labs.
Constance provided an approximated guess of how many teachers were teaching online. There
was little depth in respondents’ overall understanding of what teaching with the Internet means
for practitioners in a high school setting. Heather was the most forthcoming with a definition for
blended learning that included student assessment tools in online formats.
Motivation results (Part II of survey). Respondents also differed in how they felt about
teaching with the Internet. Respondents answered five questions that emphasized assumed
influences in motivation (confidence and values). Estelle was most apprehensive about the
newness of teaching in a blended learning model, whereas Heather shared that she was very
confident, that she had been teaching effectively in a blended model, and was highly supportive
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 113

of it. Stacey indicated on the survey that she felt confident because of organizational support,
which differed from Hazel who responded to the question of confidence with the emotion of
frustration about teaching with the Internet, due to organizational barriers. Constance was
hopeful, and she shared that she was getting more confident each day.
Respondent values about teaching with the Internet also differed. The differences divided the
respondents into two discernable groups. Heather, Constance, and Stacey thought that district-
provided tools, devices, and programs were relevant to instruction. Estelle and Hazel did not
agree. Heather, Constance, and Stacey also responded that teaching with the Internet appealed to
them, whereas Estelle and Hazel were more on the fence. Estelle felt intimidated and indicated
that she had more expertise in other areas. Hazel described how her values about teaching with
the Internet had changed. Teaching with the Internet had gone from appealing to “fighting
battles”.
Organization results (Part III of survey). Respondents had different views about
organizational resources, support, and cultural implications that reflected organizational barriers.
When asked about resources, Estelle, Heather, and Constance shared that the district needed to
provide training to teachers to be able to use the tools. Stacey mentioned that computers and
iPads needed to be updated. Hazel shared that the district technology department needed to stop
blocking websites, and that the school needed reliable WiFi. Hazel described support as being
low. Constance agreed. She labeled support as being “not great yet”. Heather described support
as being varied, based on who a teacher knows who can assist. Stacey’s response was more
positive because she saw school support as being sufficient. Estelle defined support as being
visible philosophically but not actively. Regarding collegiate interaction and departmental
culture, Estelle, Heather, and Constance saw division among teachers, based on a few different
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 114

factors: being younger and more tech-savvy, willingness (or unwillingness) to embrace
technology, and being “on board” versus being “skeptical”. Hazel reported that her colleagues
want to integrate technology but have the same frustrations about organizational support. Stacey
remained positive by stating that her colleagues were “well-versed” in teaching with technology.
Findings
Introduction
The division of thought among these practitioners was a compelling observation. Houston
(2008) asserts that digital divide manifests whereby a rapidly expanding setting for teacher
education involves increasingly sophisticated technology. Teachers at Senior High School X
were not necessarily on the same page about teaching with technology and the Internet. Survey
results supported the relevance of stakeholder assumed influences in KMO, but the researcher
had to analyze supplementary data to unearth the rest of the story in this study. The explanation
of findings weaves stakeholder assumed influences in KMO, in each section. Including multiple
assumed influences in each findings section supported the researcher’s CF for this project. Data
did not function in isolation, in answering research questions, nor in revealing gaps in
performance across all three categories of analysis. KMO influences were interconnected.
19

The following are several vital themes that support the research results and subsequent
findings. These findings are evidenced by data collected at the school site during this study.
Estelle, Hazel, Heather, Constance, Matthew, Betty, and Stacey continued to tell the story about
blended learning instruction at Senior High School X. Stories should be presented with the
freshness of discovery (Denning, 2011). The researcher studied and analyzed those words

19
Stakeholder assumed influences in KMO are listed in the same order in the Findings Tables as in other tables in
this project, for visual consistency. Figure 1 in Chapter Three is the CF for this project.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 115

wholeheartedly and objectively to discover these three leading answers to the original research
questions.
Finding #1
Research Question #1 sought to determine how knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers impacted teacher use of information and communications technology (ICT), specifically,
blended learning. The finding to this research question was that teachers were divided internally,
externally, individually, and collectively in terms of KMO barriers that impacted teacher
practitioner use of ICT in instruction, specifically, blended learning. A division landscape is
consistent with related literature that presents discordant teacher perceptions about teaching with
technology (Kemp et al., 2014; Houston, 2008). An observer of landscape sees “into the life of
things” (Wordsworth, 1798). Teacher practitioners were divided in knowledge, beliefs, values,
and views of the organization related to teaching with technology.
20
This section directly
addresses eight validated stakeholder assumed influences: declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge, self-efficacy, utility value, and cultural model #1, cultural model #2, cultural setting
#1, and cultural setting #2. Table 6 revisits the stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that
Finding #1 validated (see Table 6).

20
All supporting themes are written in first person and present tense to augment teacher voice.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 116

Table 6
Validated Stakeholder Assumed Influences in KMO in Finding #1
Stakeholder Assumed
Influence
Category in Gap Analysis Validated
Yes, High Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
What Teachers Need to
Know
Teachers collectively need to
develop shared definitions of
technological terminology
(technology, technology
training, online learning,
blended learning) to cultivate
new instructional approaches
that include technology and
new schemas about effective
classroom practice.
Declarative Knowledge (D) V
What Teachers Need to Do
Teachers need technology
training to learn new
technological skills and how
to apply those skills
procedurally to increase
technology-infused
instructional practices at the
school site.
Procedural Knowledge (P) V
Self-efficacy

Teachers need to believe they
are able to deliver instruction
that includes technological
tools or online forums.

Motivation—Self-Efficacy
(M, SE)
V
Expectancy-Value
Theory—Utility Value

Teachers need to see the
value of using technology in
the classroom as an
innovative enhancement to
traditional instructional
approaches.
Motivation—Utility Value
(M, UV)
V

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 117

Table 6 Continued
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Teachers are not accountable
to peers or supervisors for
using technology-infused
instruction.
Organization (O, CM) V
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Teachers have accepted their
cultural roles—their
professional identity—as
traditional classroom
teachers.

Organization (O, CM) V
Cultural Setting Influence
1:
Teachers are provided
minimal technological tools
and funding for related
practice.
Organization (O, CS) V
Cultural Setting Influence
2:
Teachers lack strong positive
role models of technology-
infused practice.
Organization (O, CS) V

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 118

Supporting Theme #1: No shared definition for blended learning exists among my
colleagues. Teachers shared what they understood the umbrella topic of technology to be, but
they lacked clarity that could come only from organizational cohesion in declarative knowledge.
Definitions for “technology” were consistent with related literature that emphasizes technology
as being tools, including computers, laptops, digital devices such as handheld devices,
multimedia equipment, and calculators (Bang & Luft, 2013; Plair, 2008). However, teachers did
not share the same definitions for the uses of technology, including teaching settings—online
and/or blended learning models. Teachers were using tools, devices, and programs in different
ways. Hora and Holden (2013) posit that different tools are associated with different teaching
methods and types of student cognitive engagement. This was evident also in respondents’
description of teaching approach with those tools, devices, or programs.
Respondents revealed “divide” when identifying and defining classroom landscape (blended,
online, or face-to-face). Houston (2008) predicates that a rapidly expanding setting for teacher
education encompasses two components: (a) technology that is increasingly sophisticated, and
(b) teachers and students who are comfortable using that technology, through use of cell phone,
iPods, digital cameras, blogs, chat rooms, or Google to conduct learning activities. Respondents
did not see online or blended learning as viable classroom settings, in most of the data. Instead,
blended learning, for the most part, was an add-on to the classroom setting: face-to-face. In the
PD training, definitions for blended learning were as follows, verbatim: differentiated learning
styles, a mix of classroom work and online work, provides more opportunities for a flipped
classroom, best of both types of classes, and allows students to find what works best for them.
Estelle commented in her interview that she saw blended learning as “more using the Internet as
a resource for the students to explore, and then my teaching would be more guiding them with
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 119

the application of the things that they’re learning online.” Definitions for blended learning
served as branches of a dominant existing model: traditional instruction. Although two phrases
in the data (“flipped” and “both types of classes”) denoted that some practitioners acknowledged
two separate settings, or the inclusion of two settings, descriptions of a blended learning
classroom were underdeveloped. These descriptions did not include factors that defined blended
learning as an unexpurgated experience—a setting all its own, one that embodies face-to-face,
but does not rely upon it as the main structure for instructional delivery.
In the PD training, respondents also defined online learning as a separate type of learning
from face-to-face. Here, teachers acknowledged what online learning can do for students, but
definitions of online learning presented a learning experience that was not so personal as face-to-
face. This posed yet, another divide. Definitions for online learning were as follows, verbatim:
self (student) driven, multi-faceted content available, somewhat self-paced; therefore, difficult
for some students to complete because of motivation factors, provides opportunities for distance
learning and provides for non-traditional circumstances, non-verbal directions, allows students to
work at their speed and be able to have a job or work on other classes at the same time. Online
learning in these definitions was student-centered but contained little description of a classroom
environment. The lack of classroom presence in these definitions suggested that teachers did not
see online learning as a classroom setting.
When teachers revealed their thoughts about face-to-face, classroom setting emerged wholly.
Even the word “classroom” appeared in practitioner definitions that were as follows, verbatim:
easy to know students and their needs, more personal, traditional, verbal directions, teacher
directed, and normal classroom teaching format. Related literature evinces that the teaching-
learning process in K12 classrooms is inherently personal (American Psychological Association,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 120

Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education, 2015). An instructor manipulates a learner’s
environment (Mayer, 2011). Face-to-face teaching was the only classroom setting identification
among respondents that included the notion of relationships between teachers and students, a
perspective that differed greatly from virtual setting descriptions.
The most extraordinary aspect of respondents’ perspectives about blended learning came at
the end of the study. All along, respondents had provided their understanding of blended
learning as if they had a grasp of the concepts. However, the focus group is where respondents
questioned the researcher and each other when asked whether online learning or blended learning
should be a part of every classroom. Suddenly, respondents paused, pondered quietly, and then
asked collectively, “What is blended learning?” Teachers struggled to define it at that moment.
Responses varied. Teachers verbalized: technology is a tool versus blended learning, which is a
spectrum, there is an online presence, students are creating something on a computer, come to
my classroom and learn, and then go outside of my classroom, versus a glorified poster. The
latter comment led to yet, another collective question, “What is online learning?” Teachers
voiced that they had a difficult time answering the focus group questions related to online
learning and blended learning because in their words, they didn’t “have an idea of it”. Related
literature supports the unraveling of study events that led to a juncture where teachers
spontaneously looked to each other for shared definitions about technology. Information
processing theory asserts that successful learning involves memory systems (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2009). Construction of language means weaving encounters with the social and
natural world into meaning (Rosaen & Florio-Ruane, 2008). Interactive experiences or
collaboration with others is central to the acquisition of knowledge of how to teach, and to
learning in cultural settings (Buehl & Fives, 2009; Jones & Dexter, 2014; Gallimore &
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 121

Goldenberg, 2001). Teachers relied on each other to develop shared knowledge about online and
blended learning. However, they were visibly at the beginning of a long walk in terms of
collectivity associated with blended learning instruction.
To further explicate, no teacher had the same understanding of “instructional model”. In the
initial survey, respondents each had a different view of what an instructional model is: hands-on
learning, board work and group activity, backward design or Analysis-Design-Development-
Implement-Evaluate (ADDIE), group learning versus independent study, and exploratory. None
of these definitions supported a shared definition of instructional model that reflected teaching
practice, such as traditional model, flipped classroom, or blended learning. Instead, respondents
defined a teaching model based on what students are doing in a classroom. Only two small
exceptions existed: the inclusion of the word “flipped” in the PD training question that asked
teachers to define blended learning, and the inclusion of the word “traditional” in the PD training
that asked teachers to define face-to-face. However, “flipped” and “traditional” were not terms
that appeared frequently, if at all, in practitioner interpretation of instructional model. Most data
revealed that declarative knowledge was fragmented among practitioners regarding a definition
for teaching approach or instructional model. Matthew described “teaching approach” as
follows,
I think as general, all teachers need to be more open to looking at new ideas, looking at
new or different strategies without feeling like it’s saying they were not an effective
teacher before. I just think that we need to remember people change, times change, and it
doesn’t mean what you did before was bad, but what’s new might be better.
According to Matthew, teaching approach had to do with being effective—it was not a type of
instructional delivery, rather an outcome. When asked what “effective” meant, he responded,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 122

“Someone that not only is able to get their students to understand content, but students and
parents feel like they can communicate and kind of have that trusted relationship.” Matthew saw
teaching approach as relationships-based, not necessarily settings-based.
Responses addressing conceptual clarity revealed knowledge gaps about blended learning
among respondents. Hazel misinterpreted the first interview question. To this teacher, “online
lesson planning” meant a template she called “Planboard” for teachers to use to write out lesson
plans. Creating lessons online was the intended focus of that question, but the teacher
understood online lesson planning to be a virtual place for calendaring, instead of an action.
Additionally, Heather understood blended learning to be a combination of teaching face-to-face
and online, but her responses did not reveal a blended learning model that emphasized
asynchronous components. Heather stated the following about creating a blended learning
classroom,
You’ve gotta have something online and something not online and then you have to find
a way to make them mesh so that they make sense and they fit together, and they have to
be meaningful.
Heather saw a clear distinction between online and face-to-face components, but she did not
express how students would complete assignments outside of class time. When asked how she
defined meaning, she remarked, “You have to show that they’re learning something related to the
standards…something that can be measured, what they’ve learned.” Heather was actively
engaged in the inclusion of online learning. Other teachers had not advanced that far in
classroom instruction, which supported both individual and collective division among the
faculty. Betty defined a blended learning classroom as “being able to use technology more for
like vocabulary quizzes or quizzes on the books we’re reading”. Estelle envisioned blended
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 123

learning in her classroom as assigning students a few websites to look at to get main facts about
the Victorian Period in British Literature. Constance saw blended learning as an enhancement,
and she used the term “hybrid” to describe her previous teaching at a university that included an
online component. At the high school however, she described online lesson planning in direct
connection to her use of iPads in the math classroom. Within this array of responses, definitions
for online or blended learning were tools-focused, not necessarily student-focused in terms of
student control over learning settings. According to Houston (2008), settings involve both how
technology is used and problem-solving thought processes. Settings that included technological
tools, devices, and programs were underdeveloped at Senior High School X and revealed gaps in
declarative knowledge about online and blended learning.
Supporting Theme #2: Developing technology-infused practice directly coheres with
learning. Teachers shared that they needed procedural training to learn how to use Schoology in
their classrooms. Teachers were divided internally and externally in their assessment of how
much training they needed and where they should receive training. Data about learning how to
teach with the Internet was consistent with related literature that underscores the importance of
training transfer and its impact on procedural knowledge where the institution influences how
teachers interpret the benefits of teaching with technology (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Grossman
& Salas, 2011; Perrotta, 2012). Data that supported the need for effective procedural training
was consistent with literature that addressed learning as a social construct—that learning occurs
in the context of social interaction (Rosaen & Florio-Ruane, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). Internally,
one teacher was divided because she did not trust the technology coach, which affected her
learning. Constance stated,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 124

We have a district technology person who’s supposed to support the teachers,
specifically, the teachers of iPads in their classroom, but she does not foster a relationship
of trust with teachers, and if you can’t go to the district chosen person and you don’t have
a friend in the building that you feel comfortable going to then you don’t have any
resources.
Hazel saw external division about learning technological skills, among her social studies
department because of lack of knowledge. She offered,
They struggle with Excel, certainly not elaborate formulas, a word, email, OneNote—
those are still struggles for them, whereas there are other members of the department that
are very adept at technology and would probably, that would be a real strong point for
them.
Both Constance and Hazel acknowledged a need for procedural training but professed missing
links in that process.
Not all teachers expressed a sense of division outright, but the division was still apparent
because teachers did not share the same experiences with learning. Some teachers thought they
were receiving appropriate technological training, and other teachers thought they had to go
outside of the organization to get it. Matthew said, “I think they have really the tools they need,
but not the instruction on how to use the tools.” Matthew said he wanted to “go outside of the
expectation of programs and tools”, which meant that he wanted the district to include more
options available to teachers. In addition to Matthew’s comment, Stacey described her
procedural learning as a “crash course”. Heather explained that in her experience, teachers were
teaching each other, if teachers sought that help. She said, “Special Ed teachers right now are
asking a lot of questions. They requested training on the iPad and notability and Schoology so
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 125

that they can understand.” One teacher did not even associate herself much with procedural
learning about technology. Estelle remarked in her survey response, “[I] don’t understand how
to utilize technology with the material, since I was trained in a print-based world.” Estelle also
discussed in the PD training that she did not know how to grade papers online.
Although division internally (within one’s own learning) and division externally (related to
each other or the group) were strong components in this breakdown of procedural knowledge
learning, teachers shared similar thoughts about how training could help them. In the focus
group, when asked how teachers should be trained, teachers agreed about certain parameters:
small group, hands-on, content-specific, opportunities for cross-curricular, and training that is
functional and usable. The view that training could be positive and relevant to practice was
consistent with Aguinis and Kraiger (2009), who assert that training can help empower
individuals and teams. However, teachers did not necessarily see learning new strategies as a
necessity.
Teachers were divided about how important teaching with technology was at the school site.
Utility value regarding (a) technology, (b) teaching with the Internet, and (c) emerging into a
new teaching approach such as blended learning, were based on job functions and values
associated with the most important stakeholders in a teacher’s world: students. Related to
student learning, contrasting views were visible as to how much change needed to occur to be
effective in the classroom. Betty saw training on Schoology as relevant to what would be “the
most beneficial way for the kids”. However, Hazel differed in her view of the worth of online
learning for her students. Hazel was somewhat hesitant:
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 126

I would have to build an interest and a belief in the students that it’s valuable because I
think that’s one of our biggest things that’s missing…I don’t think at this point they see
them as really useful tools.
In contrast, Heather was a strong advocate of online and blended learning. She saw both settings
as advantageous for student learning and meeting course outcomes. When asked what should go
into the creation of a blended learning model in her classroom and what defines meaning for her
in a blended learning setting, she replied, “They have to show that they’re learning something
related to the standards.” Heather, like Betty and Hazel, was also focused on student learning
and engagement, but Heather saw the integration of her efforts as being positive in her
classroom, as a professional accomplishment:
Since I’ve switched to iPads I have a lot less of I’m not doing the work, a lot less
defiance, and I just feel that you stick an iPad in front of kids and they’re like, oh, it’s just
part of their every day and they do it. Like I can remember the days when kids would
just sit there and go to sleep. I rarely get that anymore, and I am not any more exciting.
Teacher motivation varied in terms of utility value, consistent with related literature that explores
EVT as an indicator of motivation (Eccles, 2009; Tamir et al., 2015; Van Acker et al., 2013).
During the focus group, teachers collectively agreed that the best use of technology was: to aid
learning and to enhance teaching, not to use it “for show”. Therefore, teachers saw a direct value
to technology if it impacted learning positively, but not all teachers were certain that this was a
possibility at their school site, or in their own classrooms.
Supporting Theme #3: Time is a utility value that impacts my performance, and time
can be an organizational barrier. Time was the premier word of choice that teachers in this
study used to convey (a) what they needed, and (b) what they did not have. Externally and
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 127

collectively, teachers experienced divide in the mere presence or absence of time. Data revealed
that time was a strong utility value for teachers and impacted choice, which was consistent with
EVT (Eccles, 2009; Pintrich, 2003). To be able to learn how to teach with technology
effectively, time was a foremost factor. When asked to what degree her department members
would agree with her about teaching in a blended learning model, Heather remarked, “What it
comes down to is, you just have to take the time if you really want to, and I don’t think they want
to.” Time was a barrier to implementation of technology-integrated lessons (Hsu, 2016; Martin
& Carr, 2015). The need for time influenced practitioner capability to learn new teaching
strategies. Estelle declared,
I know technology is not my strong suit, and I know it takes a long time to find
everything online to get it prepared and then of course, websites are always going to
change, and so it takes a lot of preparation in a different form than I’ve been preparing
you know, for the other part of my career.
Estelle’s remarks supported the continued theme of a divide across teaching landscapes, where
teachers saw online or blended learning as separate environments from face-to-face. In Estelle’s
comment about time, she further evidenced how face-to-face and virtual settings were disjoined
by conceptualizing teaching with technology as different from the “other part of my career”.
Estelle’s words indicated that time to learn was a negative experience because changing would
take more preparation than teaching in the familiar, her known setting. During the PD training,
Estelle shared that her experience of using “Turnitin”, a digital plagiarism checkpoint for one
student in a dual enrollment class, was a challenge. The process of assessing this paper that was
connected to a digital checkpoint was more daunting for Estelle. Grading the one paper took
more time, as well as handling related concerns that grading a stack of hard copy papers did not
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 128

include. When asked what would go into the creation of a blended learning model in a math
class (which does not have papers), Constance corroborated,
Time, a lotta time. I feel like it’s a process where you start replacing what you’re doing
and then you start enhancing what you’re doing. And so, it takes a lot of time to replace
and then enhance.
When the researcher probed further, to ask if there was anything else Constance might add, she
repeated, “No, that’s probably it. Lots of time.”
Time mattered to several teachers, but several teachers saw time as an obstacle. Matthew
expressed that as a college student, he had seen a value in online learning, but his experiences in
online learning were cut short because he had run “out of time” to complete a project. Hazel
mentioned that she liked the “flexibility” of online lesson planning and sharing, but that, “time to
create sometimes is a challenge”. When asked when a teacher should change instructional
practice in the classroom, respondents in the focus group commented, “When the teacher has
time to effectively change (major changes).” Stacey echoed the need for abundant time to
change practice, in response to an interview question about teaching in a blended learning
setting. She replied,
There’s a lot of set-up and kind of structuring of the curriculum in the beginning, but
once that’s done I see that it’s very helpful for teachers and it saves them a lot of time on
the back end. I think that’s great, but the initial set-up is overwhelming and daunting, a
little bit, especially for me as a new teacher, and everything else that I have to do. So,
I’m interested, but maybe down the road.
Time not only manifested as an obstacle, but presented a dichotomy. Stacey’s description of
learning to create a blended learning model was negative if applied to her current school year,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 129

but positive for the future, if she were to learn and implement the model by completing that “set-
up”. Practitioners associated time with negativity if it was being taken away from other job
duties, but time was positive if it could save time for the practitioner in subsequent school years.
This understanding of how much time starting would take and how much time one could save
was another divide because the teacher would have to make decisions about priorities (saving
time now or later) in terms of utility value.
Teachers were not necessarily against the creation of new teaching approaches, but time
became a barrier in being able to consider them as being achievable. If teachers could save time,
then the endeavor was worthwhile, and technology-infused instruction might be a value. The
notion of positivity and time was evident also when Betty was asked whether her teaching
practice could change because of technology, specifically, online or blended learning. Betty
replied, “I think it would expose to me different ways of teaching. So, that I’m not teachin’ it all
the same way all the time.” Here, time took on a third meaning. If a teacher viewed time related
to a broad scope of instructional effort, then time was a utility value if instruction varied to
differentiate learning activities.
Other associations that merged time and negativity included PD trainings. Teachers valued
time, but time needed to be used wisely. In the focus group share-out, respondents voiced
outright a sense of disconnect associated with technology PD trainings and time. Teachers stated
conversationally that in the organization, there was, “Big disconnect, big disconnect. Huge.
Even when we see a teacher doing it, it’s a waste of our time and everyone’s on their phone.”
“It” here, referred to technology training. The words “big” and “disconnect” were repeated twice
by one practitioner, and echoed as “huge” by another. Also in the focus group, teachers
responded that time and resources were necessary for implementation of a blended learning
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 130

model. Data revealed more negative associations with time than any other type of experience.
Internal and external divide were strong. Time was a deep value, but practitioners deeply lacked
time in their teaching environment.
To summarize, teachers linked the notion of time as a utility value to both (a) their teaching
tasks, and (b) organizational affordability. To these practitioners, the notion of time was positive
or negative depending on whether teachers were using time effectively, whether they were losing
time, and whether they were using time to grow as educators and meet student learning
outcomes.
Supporting Theme #4: My confidence is based on experience with online learning
forums, peer support, and access to the resources. Teacher motivation varied in terms of self-
efficacy. Collectively, teachers were divided about their level of ability in learning to teach in a
blended learning model. Teachers experienced self-efficacy both individually and collectively
(Bandura, 2000; Pintrich, 2003). Individually, a few teachers were making progress at their
school site with Schoology and the use of iPads in their classrooms. Individually, some teachers
chose not to change their instructional practice from the traditional model to one that included
the Internet more readily. Collectively, not all teachers were “on board” with technology
integration in the same way. The degree to which teachers were making changes was
inconsistent among the group.
Collective division regarding confidence levels was pronounced. Heather was by far the most
advanced of the seven teachers. In the PD training, she was first to respond to questions about
online and blended learning, and first to jump to the whiteboard to write down ideas. Matthew
was least interested in changing his instructional model. He referred to blended learning
consistently as a “resource”, but not one that he would use in his own classroom because he was
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 131

not convinced that it was better than the instructional delivery he already provided. In part,
Matthew’s motivation was linked to skepticism about whether he really needed to do this.
Furthermore, low or high confidence did not necessarily mean willingness to teach in a
blended learning model. Motivation was highly individual. Matthew stated, “I understand
blended learning really well and why it could be useful.” When asked about his level of
confidence, he stated, “I wouldn’t say I’m an expert in it, but I would not be scared to jump in
and do it. It doesn’t really make me nervous.” When the researcher probed to find out what
“expert” meant, Matthew replied,
For me, I would just think doing it, having the experience to know all the work around
what works best, what doesn’t work best, how to most effectively use the resources
through whatever source you’re using, be it Blackboard or whatever.
Matthew associated his assessment of self-confidence with his lack of experience teaching in
online forums, and a required expertise to be able to do so, yet he claimed to be willing if he
valued the opportunity. Heather provided a similar self-report when she mentioned, “On a scale
of 1 to 10, I think my understanding is pretty high, so I’d say like a 7 or 8. I don’t know that my
ability is that high, but I think my understanding is that high.” Heather shared that the reason she
knew so much about blended learning and felt “very confident” was because she had been
teaching with iPads for five trimesters. She reported also that she relied heavily on peer support
to get this far with her teaching. Constance stated that her level of understanding was “above
average”. She described “average” teaching. She explained, “Traditional style where teachers
stand at the front of the classroom and they don’t have a lot of technology usage. I base that
perception on what I see my colleagues here doing.” Constance noticed her peers were not
teaching with iPads, and mentioned that she had been criticized for doing so by department
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 132

members who did not support that kind of technology integration. When asked how confident
she was, Constance replied, “I get more confident every day. I’ve been using iPads for two and a
half trimesters, and I like what I’m doing.” Constance also shared that she had learned from
Heather, who had been highly supportive of teaching with a blended learning model in math.
Constance linked confidence to practice over time, with available resources, and peer support,
albeit minimal. Hazel also shared the perspective of needing practice with the forum to feel
efficacious. She stated she was “not as confident as I think I am” to teach in a blended learning
setting. She said that she could see herself teaching in a blended learning setting, but explained,
“Not having fully implemented it, I’m not sure what level of confidence there is.” The two new
teachers, Betty and Stacey, both said individually that they were “not very confident” because
they were just starting out as educators and had not had much exposure to blended learning or
related training. Estelle felt similarly. She stated, “Not very [confident] because you know, I
really don’t know for sure how it works. It seems intriguing and certainly the direction that
we’re heading, but I know personally, I’m not there yet.” Experience, peer support, and
resources were significant to practitioners when describing their levels of self-efficacy.
Motivation was also collective. Consistent with Bandura (2000), collective motivation
differed based on the individual’s experience within the group. Organizational support made a
difference in practitioners’ self-reporting of collective self-efficacy in contrast to their individual
levels of confidence, and views differed. Stacey, who had assessed herself as “not very
confident” individually, stated that she was “very confident about teaching with the Internet at
our school” in a social context. She explained, “The support to incorporate technology into our
curriculum, is definitely felt.” Estelle’s understanding of support was dissimilar. She saw a lack
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 133

of support in her school setting, thus, collective self-efficacy was low. Consistent with Bandura
(2000), Estelle did not appraise her group’s capability, “operating as a whole”. She remarked,
I don’t feel very confident at all. It seems like whenever I plan a lesson to rely heavily on
technology, the Internet is down, or the labs won’t interface with the school’s network.
There isn’t any warning from the technology department when they are pulling down
something for maintenance, so relying on the Internet as the main source of information
seems like a recipe for disaster.
When asked about her confidence in putting one of her classes online she answered,
If I had careful instruction for me to set it up, someone there to trouble shoot with me on
the problems that would arise, and someone to help me see the value for students of a
blended learning model, I would be willing to try changing one of my classes.
Estelle revealed that she needed support to feel efficacious individually within the group. Peer
support and resources were paramount.
The division in confidence levels, low to high, and in individual and collective self-efficacy,
contributed to motivation to use a blended learning model at this school site. Lazowski and
Hulleman (2016) assert that declines in motivation undermine system effectiveness. Not all
teachers were actively demonstrating a need to change, a willingness to change, or a drive to
change instructional practice. Contrariwise, teachers who had high self-efficacy, either
individual, collective, or both, demonstrated higher motivation, and were progressing with
technology-infused practice. Only a few teachers reported being highly confident or motivated
to change current practice, which impacted organizational performance.
Theme #5: My department is not equal to other departments, or is divided. Teachers
were divided collectively in their physical group landscape: their departments. Teachers did not
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 134

share the same experiences nor outlooks about organizational unification. Researcher reflective
notes after the first PD training included the observation that there were two polarized views—
that teaching with technology was positive and teachers could make it work, and that teaching
with technology was too hard, a hassle, or would not benefit the practitioner, the students, or the
classroom. Division manifested within departments, and colleague to colleague. Some teachers
felt included in the organization, but other teachers did not see eye to eye about teaching with
technology. Not all departments were equally cohesive—or cohesive at all.
Technology-infused instruction was not a shared value among practitioners in their
organization at large. Consistent with Kezar (2001), legitimacy (or the lack, thereof) was a
cultural, external motivator for organizational change. Aflalo (2014) explains that teachers
believe meaningful learning can occur without computer technology. Matthew, one of two art
teachers in his department, was consistent in his belief that blended learning was not a necessary
teaching approach for his practice. Constance received criticism from her math department for
initiating iPads. Constance also shared that she’d had to fight with the technology department
for that set of iPads when she had been told that her classroom would be outfitted prior to the
onset of the school year. Heather remarked that her science department was split right down the
middle. Stakeholder behaviors reflected relevant literature that explains how beliefs, values, and
assumptions about what will and will not work impact organizational culture and change
(Schein, 2010). Some of the science teachers did not want to change to include technology or a
new teaching model such as blended learning, despite advancements in the department that
included two teacher role models, Heather and another veteran science teacher who were just
down the hall. Having peer mentorships available within the department did not seem to alter
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 135

set-in-stone perspectives of what a face-to-face environment should be, in the science
department. Heather, who was department chair, stated,
Our department meetings are kinda scary. The 9
th
grade teachers all have iPads. We
pretty much do everything on the iPad. And the other science, which is generally Life
Biology, they have accused us…when the freshmen come to them as sophomores they
are not ready because all we do, we don’t make ’em take notes on paper, and they don’t
do real work on the iPads. That has been said to us many a time. And they’re quite
negative about it. Very negative about it. And I’m not sure if it’s a true belief on their
part, or it it’s a jealously thing. I think it is a true belief…There’s just a lot of blame
passed around. Because we put in a science department meeting and every grade blamed
the grade below for them being missing, and they all seemed to be the same thing—
graphing, note-taking, vocabulary, and I think it’s just a breakdown in learning in
general.
When the researcher probed to ask how Heather handles these divisions, she replied,
It’s been a hard thing. The last meeting we were at, pretty hard feeling left the end. It’s a
topic we try to avoid as department head. I think they’re pretty close-minded…The two
ladies kind of jump on the bandwagon sometimes, and they’re like, I can’t learn anything
without a paper and pen in hand.
The split in Heather’s science department was a division of both utility value, motivation, and
cultural views about teaching with technology. However, newness to a device or an approach
did not necessarily mean rejection. Heather explained further, “The year that I took off was the
year they handed out the iPads, and I never even used it. It was so uncomfortable to me. It was
so foreign, but now that I use it, I take it to church, and I use it for everything.” Heather’s
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 136

explanation revealed that she had a different cultural assumption than her peers about learning
when it came to the question of changing practice. Her stance was visible also in her survey
where she wrote, “I honestly don’t know how I taught without it my first few years of teaching.”
Departmental divide was evident. When Betty was asked to what degree her departmental
members feel teachers and students can benefit from technology, she replied, “probably half and
half”. Betty’s remark was more about the nature of the class rather than teacher unwillingness to
change. The researcher asked what “half and half” meant, and Betty clarified that Life Skills
teachers would not likely use a blended learning model, but that the Resource teachers would.
The researcher understood that Life Skills was a much more hands-on learning environment
because Life Skills students faced challenges such as Downs Syndrome and Multiple Disabilities
as eligibility factors for placement. Life Skills activities were not nearly so advanced as learning
modules in Resources classes. However, Betty’s comment did not include the possibility that a
Life Skills teacher could facilitate those classes asynchronously, in part. Consistent with Schein
(2010) and the acknowledgement of microcultures within an organization, the assumption about
culture in Life Skills was that blended learning would not apply.
Levels of experience also strengthened divide among teachers. Another factor was personnel
who would be able to assist with departmental learning. Estelle voiced that her English
department was cohesive, but that younger teachers in her department were more tech-savvy.
However, Estelle said that she was willing to learn from those younger, more tech-savvy
teachers. Estelle’s comments revealed her perception of a difference between types of teachers
in her department, not necessarily an unwillingness to change. The cultural landscape that
promoted a utility value of technology-infused instruction was fragmented depending on the
department under the lens of investigation.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 137

Theme #6: My school provides resources, but not enough resources with equal access.
The organization did not make technology accessible to every department to the same degree,
which divided teachers. Teachers lacked cultural unification regarding shared beliefs, values, or
assumptions about teaching and learning with the Internet. The organization did not equally
consider departmental needs. Respondents’ perspectives were consistent with related literature
that explains how K12 is not associated with being economically rich and progressive, rather,
with being a “black box” where inputs are personnel and outputs are student achievement
(Brewer, Hentschke, & Eide, 2010; Cuban, 2013). Teachers were focused on that student
achievement as a reason for needing more resources and access, but teachers did not share the
same view about what was available to them or their students.
Respondents reported that organizational resources and funding were scarce. In the survey
stage, Hazel wrote, “I would like to have more access to bring the students up to date events that
are happening around them. However, I also want them to learn to interact with people and
spend more time facilitating and developing interpersonal skills.” Hazel was internally divided
in terms of whether blended learning should happen and would be worthwhile for students,
because of lack of resources and access. She stated in her interview,
I think we all have to face the reality that students—many of our students have great
resources. They have laptops, they have all sorts of technology, Internet at home, but
there is a population of our students whose families cannot afford that. And so, we’re
going to have to think about mitigation for those issues. How are we going to address the
needs of those students in a blended learning classroom when they don’t have those
resources at home?
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 138

Hazel did not entertain the thought verbally that with improved organizational success regarding
blended learning, perhaps, funding could provide access for families who could not afford
resources. She did not believe that a blended learning model would garner equal access for
students. Hazel did not seem to believe that she had access to resources even if she wanted them
as a teacher. She stated in her survey that she had been “kicked off “the computer lab schedule,
which prevented access to resources for both her and her classes. Several teachers echoed the
problem of school barriers at large, on several accounts, including blockage of websites,
“disconnect”, and Internet outages. Making resources available through reliable Internet or
technology purchases was inconsistent. Heather stated on her survey that the district’s focus was
on established technology, such as the online grading system, Mileposts (used for housing
student educational and behavioral information), and Splashtop, but that iPads, Schoology and
other Internet applications were less used had had less support.
The number of resources varied across departments. Heather’s science department had sets of
iPads. Constance in the math department had a set of iPads. The English department had two
sets of Computers on Wheels (COWs), the most frequent and regular access to the computer
labs, and sets of iPads. Social studies did not have these resources, and as Hazel indicated, did
not have equal access to desktop computers for student use. Special Education teachers in this
study had only two desktop computers in their Resource classrooms. Even the teachers who had
more resources did not believe that the volume was substantial for student learning. Estelle
commented on the organizational barrier of access to tools. She stated that she needed “greater
access” in the English department, and explained,
I think the kids would probably enjoy being able to do a project, and post it, have a
glorified form of social media that they could show off their stuff. I think they would
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 139

really go for something like that, but we don’t have the infrastructure here yet to support
that.
Estelle also explained that the business department had plenty of technology, but that the English
department was hindered by “having to share the technology in the classroom”. Betty had a
similar view. She saw blended learning as realistic “as long as the technology is available for
’em”. In the focus group, teachers voiced collectively that district level enthusiasm was high,
but, “time, availability, and support” were “sketchy”. Based on respondents’ experiences, tools,
and coaches were sparse resources.
The organization did not include every department holistically, which posed further external
division among groups. Matthew was one of two teachers in the art department, which was not a
core subject. Contrary to what English, science, math, social studies, and Special Education
teachers revealed about positive learning and the Internet, the art teacher did not entirely agree.
Matthew commented about how PD trainings did not apply to his department. When asked if his
teaching could change because of technology, Matthew responded,
So, being able to have some of these instructions with them, especially in photography,
when they start getting some of these complicated photo scenarios, being able to have a
resource that they could go and “re-watch” or look at the information that I gave to them
would be super helpful. We just learned how to do long exposure night photography, and
there’s a lot of different things to remember, and if they had a resource that they could
just click on their phone, here’s all the information. So, I think it could drastically
change.
Matthew acknowledged that resources could impact his willingness to change practice, but his
description of those resources was minimal and did not include a blended learning model. His
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 140

use of the word “drastically” did not match his description of the change, which was minimal, a
phone app, which posed contradiction in his responses. Furthermore, in Matthew’s photography
classroom, there were approximately 20 student desktop computers. This posed a possible
negative case feature in the qualitative data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Matthew appeared to contradict himself because he verbalized a lack of resources, yet resources
were available in one of his classrooms. A rectification of this discrepancy in the data could be
that Matthew’s definition of online learning resources was based on what he could do online for
his students, not necessarily, student access to those devices. This art classroom had more
desktop computers than any core subject area classroom, but this teacher did not envision using
them to support new teaching approaches, whereas other teachers, such as Hazel and Estelle, did
see access to devices as either a roadblock or an opportunity for change.
Lack of equal access was a division also in relationships involving support personnel. Betty
and Stacey felt they had support from their department. Heather felt the science teachers could
help Special Education teachers with Schoology or other learning regarding technology-infused
instruction. However, not every teacher believed the designated technology coach was a go-to
person. Constance did not feel the technology coach supported her. She also acknowledged that
not every teacher experienced the same treatment. She stated, “If you can’t go to the district
chosen person, and you don’t have a friend in the building that you feel comfortable going to,
then you don’t have any resources…I think that the district person needs a little more training on
professionality.” Constance saw that teachers themselves did not have equal standing to paid
professionals who were in line to assist with technology. Constance continued, “I think that
teachers at the school level who are offering support and help should probably receive some sort
of compensation for their labors.” Matthew shared a similar sentiment, which differed from
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 141

Heather’s view of a positive working environment. He described teachers in place to help with
technology as being “a little more rough around the edges”. Matthew stated that communication
between teachers who need help with technology-infused instruction and teachers who are
supposed to provide the help, was poor. He stated, “I don’t think that people really talk too
much about it…Maybe some of those that have been set aside as the leading role in those online
technology uses are not as easy to talk to.” When the researcher probed to learn what “not so
easy to talk to” meant, Matthew explained,
There’s a couple of different ones, depending on the individual. I think teachers are more
nervous to go to ’em ’cause they think they’re upset or… not angry, but just annoyed, I
guess. And the other, I’m imagining is a little more, less understanding of different
teaching styles, and if it’s not done how they think it should be done, they’re not as
willing to explore those other options with the online learning.
Matthew’s assertion expressed clearly that an organizational barrier regarding resources was lack
of approachable personnel. Matthew, whose classrooms were in different places, did not have
direct access to teachers down the hall, as did other teachers. Resources and access included
tools, devices, and people. Teacher need for access to resources, including peer support, to
increase positivity in teaching with technology, was consistent with related literature (Stanhope
& Corn, 2014). The cultural landscape did not exemplify an equal playing field. Teachers
lacked access to resources in their physical classrooms, and interpersonally.
Finding #2
Research Question #2 sought to determine how professional development (PD) impacted
teacher professional identity. The finding to this research question was that PD impacted teacher
professional identity by strengthening teachers as educators if the PD was relevant to their
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 142

practice and individual classrooms. Teacher practitioners were highly individualized. This inner
finding about teacher professional identity showed further division among practitioners regarding
self-image. This section directly addresses six validated stakeholder assumed influences:
metacognition #1, metacognition #2, metacognition #3, attainment value, utility value, and
cultural setting #2. Table 7 revisits the stakeholder assumed influences in KMO that Finding #2
validated (see Table 7).
Table 7
Validated Stakeholder Assumed Influences in KMO in Finding #2

Stakeholder Assumed
Influence
Category in Gap Analysis Validated
Yes, High Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
What Teachers Determine
About Their Teaching
Related to Technology #1
Teachers need to identify
their beliefs about knowledge
and teaching knowledge to
further develop these schemas
to determine the most
effective classroom practices.
Metacognition (M) V

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 143

Table 7 Continued
What Teachers Determine
About Their Teaching
Related to Technology #2
Teachers need to identify and
evaluate individually what
traditional instructional views
and approaches can be altered
to include technology-infused
practice.
Metacognition (M) V
What Teachers Determine
About Themselves
Teachers individually must
redefine the term
“professional identity” to
include technology-infused
instruction in practitioner
self-identity.
Metacognition (M) V
Expectancy-Value
Theory—Attainment Value
Teachers need to see the
value of technology in the
classroom, based on self-
perceptions and self-image
related to professional
identity.
Motivation—Attainment
Value (M, AV)
V
Expectancy-Value
Theory—Utility Value

Teachers need to see the
value of using technology in
the classroom as an
innovative enhancement to
traditional instructional
approaches.
Motivation—Utility Value
(M, UV)
V
Cultural Setting Influence
2:
Teachers lack strong positive
role models of technology-
infused practice.
Organization (O, CS) V

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 144

Supporting Theme #1: I do not share the same professional identity related to
technology-infused instruction, as my colleagues. The physical landscape of Senior High
School X supported the traditional teaching model. In all study participants’ classrooms there
were desks, tables, chairs, whiteboards, windows, cupboards, and a doorway. Other items varied
depending on the subject area. Only a few of these seven teachers (Heather and Constance) had
broken from tradition to change teaching practice by bringing iPads into the instructional
environment, to use Schoology with students every day. Betty and Stacey used the computers in
their classrooms to support learning activities on Schoology that other teachers in the building
required the Resource students to complete. Estelle used mostly her Smartboard as a digital
resource, and occasionally, the COWs, for student writing. Hazel had been using technology
with her government website. She posted digital novels and class lectures to make them
available online. Matthew did not use Schoology. The researcher asked respondents several
questions that were geared toward professional identity development on the job.
Self-image as an educator translated in different ways among these teachers. Technology-
infused instruction was not an attainment value for all teachers. Consistent with related
literature, teachers either demonstrated or did not demonstrate technology-infused instruction as
a subjective task value, based on their engagement with the task as reflective of self-image
(Eccles, 2005; Eccles, 2009). To illustrate, Heather clearly saw herself as an online or blended
learning teacher. Matthew did not. Heather’s increased use of technology and the Internet in her
classroom revealed a subjective task value of using technology and the Internet in instruction,
which aligned with how she reported her professional self-image to others. Matthew did not use
the Internet nearly to the same degree, which revealed a subjective task value of the traditional
model, and aligned with his presentation of professional self-image.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 145

All teachers saw their professional identity in direct relationship to their students and to
student achievement. Consistent with related literature about teacher professional identity,
identity formation among respondents was about culture and systems of knowledge and belief
(Fajardo Castañeda, 2014; Lowery-Moore et al., 2016; Pinho & Andrade, 2015; Roux, 2011). In
the survey, respondents described the attributes of a good teacher: caring, passionate,
innovative, having a strong desire to help and encourage students to do and be better, dependent
on students in each class period, being kind and patient, willing to admit mistakes, someone who
sets the stage for student learning, someone who can succinctly convey information in a clear
manner to students, and someone who works to implement research-based teaching methods and
best practices into their classroom for the ultimate benefit of their students. This collective
description of “good teaching” had cultural implications. By addressing the nature of teaching,
teachers metacognitively applied teaching practice to make a statement about who they are and
what they do. In the focus group, teachers demonstrated that self-concept. When asked to
characterize themselves as educators in three words, teachers wrote: flexible, teachable, patient,
understanding, clear outcomes, dedicated, enthusiastic, and innovative. Betty stated individually
that her motivation for learning Schoology was to benefit her students. These definitions for
self-image and identity, and progression in learning new skills, centered on relationships to
others, and teacher priorities. Teachers metacognitively did not separate themselves from their
practice in any utterance about self-definition professionally.
However, although teachers were bound by collective views about what they did as classroom
teachers, their motivation to change—or to augment their professional identity through
technology-infused practice—was not the same. Comas-Quinn (2011) asserts that teacher
identity transformation results from (a) moving from traditional classroom-based teaching to
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 146

online teaching, and (b) accepting a new identity. Some teachers saw technology-infused
instruction as an enhancement utility value, and other teachers saw technology-infused
instruction as a hindrance, an unnecessary add-on. Some teachers truly saw themselves
emerging as better teachers through technology, and demonstrated stronger attainment value and
new identity formation associated with blended learning. Heather was one of those teachers.
Her comment about not knowing how she had survived as a teacher without technology-infused
instruction, was significant. Constance repeatedly articulated the need to “enhance” her
classroom teaching. She stated,
I’m at a place where I need to start thinking about, I’ve done that replacement
component, and it’s like now what else can I do. What can I do to enhance it? I suspect
that with technology the enhancement will always happen because as technology
advances we’re gonna have to change how we incorporate it in the classroom.
When asked how a blended model could benefit her as a teacher, she added,
I can learn how to do this, and then I can learn how to do a little something more, and I
can learn how to enhance the “blendedness” of the classroom. I can enhance the
technology component, and when I became a teacher, it’s because I believe in lifelong
learning.
Constance’s professional identity revealed growth as an educator. Matthew’s professional
identity revealed keeping effective practice intact. He stated, “I just don’t feel like maybe it is
the best way to do what I’m teaching right now at this point in time for the students.” When the
researcher probed further about the word “best”, Matthew shared,
Where I’m at on the online learning side, is yeah, I could do all of these things, but just
because I’m giving them more resources, does that really mean they’re going to get better
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 147

or the best education they need from it. I feel like it’s easy on those things to create busy
work, because we feel like oh, they can just do it any time. Oh, not a big deal. I just try
to avoid that type of classroom environment.
Estelle faced a different challenge. She did not see herself in the same league as younger
teachers who were “digital natives”. In the focus group, she referred to herself as a “dinosaur”
and an “alien”. Estelle’s professional identity rested on the familiar—what she knew, could
control, and understood. Rosaen and Florio-Ruane (2008) assert that teachers express experience
metaphorically. Teachers used several extended/metaphors to describe self-image related to
teaching. Hazel linked connected the use of diverse resources to “broadening horizons,”
Matthew did not see himself as one who would “slip” into blended learning quickly, Constance
characterized pedagogical shifts as a “wrestle”, and Stacey depicted her fellow department
members as “digging their heels” about learning to teach with the Internet. Metacognitive shifts
were varied among practitioners. Values branched in two main directions: retention of effective
teaching approaches, or desire to grow and change. Teacher views could be altered, if teachers
connected those changes to strong attainment and utility value that included positive self-
perception about change.
Another notable observation about respondents was that a definition of “teaching knowledge”
did not include technology-infused instruction. Buehl and Fives (2009) explain that preservice
and practicing teachers can associate the source of teaching knowledge in concrete terms such as
books, classes, and observations, which is simplified and does not explain how individuals
acquire or construct knowledge from materials and experiences. Respondents demonstrated
simplified remarks. They defined “teaching knowledge” as: necessary information to meet
standards, imparting information that the teacher has learned, pedagogy and knowledge of
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 148

students, the course and how it is taught, and ability to communicate what a teacher knows.
None of these answers indicated teacher metacognition or self-inquiry into personal beliefs or
role in teacher education and development, consistent with Buehl and Fives (2009). Teacher
professional identity regarding teaching knowledge did not include reconstruction of learning
settings, an intricate explanation of how knowledge transfers from teachers to students, nor how
knowledge is part of student learning. Teachers’ main association with knowledge supported
related literature that denotes “teacher as pedagogical expert” as a central attainment value and
professional identity construct (Ifanti & Fotopoulou, 2010). Teachers who did not see anything
new in teaching were less likely to attend to process or implement new information and
techniques (Buehl & Fives, 2009; Comas-Quinn, 2011). Knowledge bases or schemas that
surrounded technology-infused instruction and changing practice, were not distinct.
Supporting Theme #2: I identify as a face-to-face teacher, but I acknowledge that
teaching with the Internet and technology is part of my professional role. An interesting
dilemma arose in teacher metacognition about professional roles. PD trainings on technology
were a known occurrence at the school site, but teachers did not necessarily grasp the need to
change because of those PD trainings. Teachers revealed that they understood a need to change,
based on the “wave of the future”, but most teachers were not integrating this change as part of
their current professional identity or role. Fajardo Castañeda (2014) posits that teacher identity
is formed, shaped, or transformed while teachers participate in a teacher community and develop
skills and teaching competence which are fundamental to understanding professional identity.
Teachers’ central community was the face-to-face landscape. The virtual setting was an addition
to that landscape and to a group culture that maintained traditional teaching approaches.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 149

A paradox about self-definition arose. The “traditional model”, although rarely identified in
those terms by respondents, was the permeating setting. Yet teachers who propagated a
traditional instructional approach also identified themselves as online and/or blended learning
teachers. When teachers placed their name cards on three different instructional setting options
on the whiteboard (face-to-face, online, blended learning) during the two PD trainings, all
teachers identified themselves as face-to-face. However, Betty, who used Schoology only in
conjunction with students who were assigned activities on the LMS by other teachers, identified
herself as being both online and blended learning, although none of her own lesson planning
involved either of those forums. Matthew and Stacey identified themselves as blended learning
teachers in the PD training, yet neither Matthew nor Stacey had experience in blended learning
models, based on the type of instruction they reported using when they talked about their
classrooms. Practitioners’ views of what they were doing in their classrooms included online
and/or blended learning forums, possibly, as what these teachers could see themselves doing, not
necessarily, what they were doing in the current school year. Richardson and Alsup (2015) posit
that teachers can re-build a traditional teacher identity. Respondents who were not actively
engaged in blended learning revealed that despite the traditional instructional model as a main
teaching approach, blended learning was an attainment value to some degree. Consistent with
Pintrich (2003), motives can be unconscious or implicit. In contrast, some respondents did not
label themselves as virtual setting educators at all, except in the context of a changing world.
In both scenarios (posting a name card to identify a teaching setting or explaining one’s
teaching approach), respondents displayed cognitive dissonance regarding what they valued.
Consistent with Festinger (1957), practitioners held conflicting beliefs about who they were or
what they should do regarding technology-infused instruction. Teachers saw that teaching with
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 150

technology was part of their role, but they did not envision themselves in that change. Estelle
associated changing practice with changing times. She acknowledged in her survey:
I need to learn how to use it to inform my instruction…This is a big challenge for me. I
know from research that students’ minds have changed because of their continual
exposure to screens and “instant gratification” from their digital world. I need to know
how to “teach where they live” in the technological world in order to really be effective
in reaching the students.
Estelle explained that because times were changing, her practice would need to shift. However,
Estelle was still a traditional model teacher. She stated in her interview,
I know many teachers…have already gone to an online grading kind of aspect so that the
student will submit the paper electronically, the teacher will grade it electronically. I’m
certainly not to that point yet. I need my paper. I need my red pen.
When the researcher asked if Estelle’s practice could change because of technology, Estelle said,
“Yes”. When the researcher probed about whether Estelle was ready to change, she replied,
“Not yet”. Matthew also saw technology in a future-sense. He stated, “I see a value in it. I see
how it could be really helpful, and I can see a point where that would be the way to go.”
However, Matthew did not envision changing what he was already doing any time soon.
Matthew stated, “I’d say, right now, if it was next year…I’d say I’m not interested in really
doing it.” Stacey also saw teaching with the Internet as part of teacher professional role. She
remarked, “I feel like that’s where everyone’s going, and so I would like to learn it before all of
the bells and whistles come with it.” Stacey also shared that she felt stronger in the traditional
model. She added,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 151

I even contradicted myself there because yes, I would love to do it, and I think that it
would be great to get in on the ground floor and learning it as everyone else is learning it,
but right now, that seems overwhelming to me.
Stacey, Estelle, and Matthew saw a value in blended learning. Utility was evident—blended
learning was student-centered, it could be an asset, and it was where teaching was headed. But
for several teachers, blended learning was not yet a current utility value—it was something to do
later, and possibly, reflected only minimal subjective task value (attainment), at best.
Teachers were not necessarily metacognitive about their practice related to technology-
infused instruction. Feiman-Nemser (2008) posits that learning to think like a teacher means
developing the capacity to think on one’s feet, to reflect, and to adjust practice. Logically, this
foundational definition of good teaching that leads to classroom mastery can apply to daily and
developing practice. Teachers who were not engaged in identity formation were not
metacognitive about their practice, by asking themselves what they could change that might
challenge existing structures. Teachers did not share the self-image of “online educator” as part
of their current professional identity.
The traditional model was the model of choice. Consistent with Schein (2010), teachers
identified with the face-to-face environment as the dominant group culture—teachers developed
boundaries and criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Heather’s and Constance’s experiences with
divided departments magnified that challenge. Constance remarked, “The biggest struggle that
teachers face is those traditional teachers have a hard time grasping how will I be not face-to-
face, or how can I take out this really cool thing that I do.” Constance suggested that for
colleagues, changing practice meant losing, not gaining. Grossman and Salas (2011) explain that
stakeholders may be hesitant to apply new skills if they fear breaking organizational norms.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 152

According to Constance, teachers in the math department valued keeping certain practices and
items in place. Hazel indicated through her description of the physical landscape that even with
a change in teaching practice to include more online learning in her classroom, aspects of her
teaching would absolutely stay the same. She stated, “There are components of my classroom
that I’m never going to do away with but I think could be enhanced by technology.” Hazel’s
interpretation of the role of technology in her classroom did not reflect transformation or even
innovation, rather, basic enhancement, which did not necessarily support identity formation.
Comas-Quinn (2011) explains that to move into blended learning, how teachers perform their
role requires transformation. Hazel did not indicate real change in practice. Instead, she focused
on how technology could augment the model she was already using, and could preserve. Even
the two teachers who were most at the forefront of organizational change, Heather and
Constance, ran classrooms that reflected a traditional model.
21
Constance’s math test review
session mirrored direct instruction in the physical landscape, although students were using iPads
to answer questions during the game. Constance walked in between desks to monitor student
learning. She also wrote on the whiteboard during the lesson. There was no indication of an
asynchronous learning component to the activities. Heather’s science class was also using iPads
to answer questions about chemicals and electric reactions. Heather did a fair amount of guided
instruction. She walked around the room and in between tables to assist students with their
learning by asking critical thinking questions. Students completed the activity in groups, and
they were also walking around the room, using the sinks and other materials. Students used the
iPads to type their answers, but there was no indication of an asynchronous component to the
lesson. The blended learning model in these two classrooms revealed the use of tools and the

21
The researcher observed each teacher’s classroom once during instruction. Hazel had dropped out of the study
by that stage.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 153

Internet during instruction, not necessarily individual student pacing or individual student
assessment in an online forum. Richardson and Alsup (2015) discuss how online teachers have a
strong online presence where they build connections and rapport with students in ways that differ
from the face-to-face arena. Although Heather and Constance embraced change and appeared to
be strong teachers, their teaching occurred in real time, in the physical classroom. Other study
participants’ classrooms mirrored the traditional classroom completely—the absence of digital
learning altogether.
Supporting Theme #3: PD impacts my self-image in terms of classroom relevance.
One salient discovery about PD trainings and teaching practice was that teachers were more
inclined to change if they could see learning and new teaching approaches as beneficial for their
students. Student learning was integral to teacher consideration of pedagogical shifts. Plair
(2008) explains that PD programs should restructure how teachers acquire educational
technology knowledge to augment curriculum standards. Pinho and Andrade (2015) assert that
for teacher education to be a setting for the development of professional identity, learning
environments need to be meaningful for teachers, and appropriate to their contexts of work and
to the challenges they face. When respondents were asked in the focus group what was most
important to them as classroom teachers, they answered, “that students are successful” and
“having students learn that they can do hard things and problem-solve”. PD impacted
professional identity if teachers saw the potential for increased instructional effectiveness and
student achievement.
Teachers described the ideal teaching setting. Most of those descriptions were student-based.
In the focus group, respondents wrote: small class sizes, lots of money, flexible classroom
schedule, motivated students, and students who are engaged and enthusiastic. Teachers added,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 154

“if this is true, I can do anything.” The definition of ideal setting reflected a service-oriented
self-image that echoed teacher definition of the face-to-face classroom. Teachers emphasized
relationships: how teachers could interact in their physical spaces, and how teachers could best
meet the needs of individuals in those spaces. Teachers who could control that setting in
desirable parameters saw possibility in teaching.
“Student-based” was a strong factor in several respondents’ ideas related to changing practice.
Hazel likened her job to a business. She stated, “It’s more about the customer service issue, of
us offering the customer service to the kids that they need.” Hazel was a strong proponent of the
traditional model. Hazel’s comments were consistent with related literature that questions the
worth of a blended learning model (Sparks, 2015). Hazel added, “They still have a desire for
paper, and maybe that’s just inherent in us as human beings that we like to touch and to see and
more or our senses are involved.” Although Hazel acknowledged positive aspects of online
learning, she did not see herself progressing as a teacher in a virtual setting. She described her
own online learning experiences: “For me, to have things available online is really
helpful…especially in disciplines where I struggle.” However, when she talked about her
classroom, she said, “It’s not like my textbook comes with pre-generated lectures the kids can
watch—they can stop and replay. It’s not going to be the exact same discussions that we have in
class of course, but it is available.” Consistent with Richardson and Alsup (2015), online and
face-to-face materials were not the same. Hazel’s focus in her own classroom was on whether
students would be able to garner the same caliber or depth of learning online that she provided
face-to-face. Hazel characterized her lectures as “available”, which suggested that she would not
be developing that forum further.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 155

Student learning was a leading consideration when teachers questioned what they could with
the Internet. Matthew was concerned that if he were to divert to online how-to videos in art,
information could get lost unless he oversaw what students were accessing, which would impact
student learning. He stated,
Those that really struggle understanding some of the concepts…They could look, listen
to read, observe…One of the biggest struggles I have in art is just seeing the process, and
so that would be the advantage online is they could have multiple links and videos of
demonstrations that are actually correct, and not just some random person putting it on
YouTube that is not done correctly.
When asked what a teacher should prioritize, Estelle stated, “Right now, we’re tasked with
meeting the Common Core standards. And so, figuring out lessons that align to those standards
that meet what the state is expecting us to do—that’s the priority.” When asked whether
classroom teaching approaches needed to change, Estelle said, “Probably to some degree they do
because certainly the generation of student has changed. I’ve been doing this 31 years. I’ve seen
three major shifts and it’s looking like it’s time for a fourth.” Estelle’s “shifts” were all based on
student learning. She described the three instructional shifts she had made to support changing
student needs over the last three decades: factual memorization, open notes, and student
demonstration of two to three skills. Estelle acknowledged “change” based on what students
needed, not what she chose for herself. Estelle alluded that the fourth shift would involve using
more technology in her classroom. Heather, who had demonstrated that integration, was also
focused on student learning. She also commented about teaching to the state standards. She
gave an example of how some of her students struggled with drawing to show their
understanding of concepts in science, but that technology had made this activity more efficient
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 156

for students. Heather stated that with the iPads, “For some reason [students] aren’t as afraid, and
they can erase really easy on their things, so definitely, benefit.” Constance also connected
student learning to online settings, although the reality of that connection was sparse at her
school site. She said, “It’s not common to use online lessons or technology for student learning
in the classroom.” Constance was also concerned about student global competitiveness. She
added, “If our students can’t compete on an international level with students from other
countries, something’s got to change.” Stacey, as a Special Education teacher, agreed with the
idea that online learning can be positive, but she was concerned that her students would struggle
during learning activities if they had to use the Internet in Resource class. She stated,
In Resource, it’s very difficult to get the kids on board with that idea because they
struggle just with normal everyday things. I think they would walk in with their walls up
on it, but with the same patience and some time, I think that they would come around too,
’cause they already have to for their other classes.
Stacey did not see student learning, based on technology in her classroom, as an immediate result
of changed practice, although she acknowledged that learning could occur at some point.
Classroom relevance was paramount, both in terms of pedagogy and student capability.
When considering change, teachers described their current PD trainings as ineffective,
although the district offered technology trainings. Consistent with Rodgers and Scott (2008),
external forces of context and relationships can shape identity. To illustrate, Heather had
developed those relationships in peer mentorships, whereas Hazel had not. Other teachers
expressed their desire for PD training to address their worlds—their actual needs in the
classroom. Ifanti and Fotopoulou (2010) explain that education itself impacts teacher
professional identity. Some practitioners did not think that organizational education in the form
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 157

of PD trainings was relevant. Hazel stated on her survey, “I have attended one PD on Schoology
and another on Mileposts. The Schoology class was poorly taught and difficult to understand
despite my aptitude in technology.” Time as a utility value impacted relevance. If teachers
could not integrate what they were being asked to do, then they could not make the training
relevant to their classrooms. Hazel continued,
The Mileposts class was easy, but I found it to be something that requires so much time
that I find it difficult to work it into an already hectic day. There are trainings that can
now happen in the classroom setting, but they are often before school or during a prep
period when teachers have the least amount of time.
Hazel’s comments indicated that the organization did not consider transfer regarding training.
Grossman and Salas (2011) assert that inconsistencies in transfer exist in motivation, perceived
utility of training, and the work environment (opportunity to perform, follow-up). The lack of
time to implement what she was being asked to do influenced PD relevance for Hazel, and likely,
an opportunity for her to transform professional identity based on using those programs. In
contrast to the view that there were only a few trainings, Stacey remarked on her survey,
There have been multiple opportunities for us to receive training on technology in our
professional development. They offer at least one section of training on technology
during each training that I have attended. I also know there have been multiple trainings
offered outside of professional development that have optional to us from the district.
However, although Stacey indicated the organization had provided several trainings on
technology (a view that differed from some of her colleagues), she did not address relevance in
her comments, nor what the trainings were about. She also did not specify that she had changed
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 158

teaching practice because of the trainings that she had attended. Thus, number of PD trainings
did not signify increased changes in self-image or teaching approach.
According to study participants, education had to be relevant to teaching practice. At this
school site, teacher education was sparse. Matthew did not see district PD trainings as pertinent
to art class. Matthew said,
I feel like if there was more talk about actual application you know, this is how you could
use it with English, this is how you could use it with math, this is what I would like to see
it used for. I think that kind of gets those wheels turning a little more, and it’s like okay,
well, maybe there is a way I could use this technology to help out instead of man, this is
really boring, and the way you’re using it I would never ever do, so it’s pointless to look
at the technology.
The examples of technology-infused instruction that PD presenters provided directly impacted
Matthew’s motivation to use technology. He made it clear that they were not applicable to his
work by using strong words such as “never ever”. The PD examples were not relevant to his
teaching, so he did not bother to go further into his investigation of using technology in the
classroom. In the focus group, teachers almost mocked the emphases of the organization in PD
trainings. Teachers ruminated about the meagre amount of preparation PD presenters put into
the task. Teachers said in conversation,
I think most of our PDs plan the night before, if that. It feels that way. We’re teachers,
and we can recognize good planning. We’re not going to be tricked by like, “Oh, this
was really great, you planned it in 15 minutes.” You did a PPT! “Oooh!”
Matthew added to the conversation, chuckling, “I changed it, and used Prezi.” Teachers detected
his sarcasm and laughed.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 159

Teacher peer role models were also a necessity to PD relevance. Practitioners shared how
they needed more go-to personnel to help them learn procedurally how to change practice.
Beijaard et al. (2004) explain the role of agency in constructivist learning and professional
identity formation, that individual and collaborative learning take place through the activity of
the learner. Related literature also supports that PD can be positive in the traditional setting if
teachers develop a teacher-as-designer professional identity whereby practitioners model
practice, scaffold the design process, and design for real-world use (Svihla et al., 2015). Heather
was doing that. She had taken on the role of peer mentor for Constance, and Heather had been a
recipient of consistent peer mentorship from a fellow 9
th
grade science teacher. Lowery-Moore
et al. (2016) express that teacher leadership can rest more on leading from inside the classroom
and being knowledge teachers who are change agents, rather than moving into administrative
roles. Heather claimed that the science teacher at her school building had made a big difference
in her acquisition of technological learning. Although Heather was not running PD trainings, her
commitment to helping other teachers learn (Constance, the Special Education department),
evidenced an increase of knowledge and of motivation, and the importance of peer mentorships
in the development of new identity that included technology-infused instruction. Heather
developed the value of technology-infused instruction after integrating it. Betty’s and Stacey’s
experiences were also positive. Peer mentorships made a great difference in their learning.
However, those peer mentorships had to be personally relevant to change practice and to
augment teacher identity. Hazel stated,
I think that’s some of the biggest obstacles for me…walking through what it’s going to
look like, what my class will be like compared to now. Maybe it takes teachers seeing
classrooms that are already like that in their discipline…It’s not as helpful for me to go to
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 160

a science classroom that’s heavily technology when my discipline is so different and I
know that there’s sort of an approach that if it works in one discipline, it works in all
disciplines, and I’m not sure that that’s necessarily true.
Consistent with Roux (2011), vocational commitment informed professional identity, and the
former became a tool for coping with change and entertaining possibilities. Teachers who saw
personal relevance in PD exhibited more willingness verbally to change. Teachers who did not
see that personal relevance were more apprehensive or less inclined to change who they were as
educators.
Finding #3
Research Question #3 sought to determine if innovative delivery of professional development
(PD) could increase teacher inclination to use information and communication technologies
(ICT) in the classroom. The finding to this research question was that innovative delivery of PD
can be a positive experience by: opening channels of communication, increasing collaboration,
and encouraging teachers to become interactive, if the PD is personally meaningful. Teachers
needed a new way of thinking and experiencing PD. This section directly addresses five
validated stakeholder assumed influences: procedural knowledge, metacognition #3, self-
efficacy, cultural model #1, and cultural setting 2. Table 8 revisits the stakeholder assumed
influences in KMO that Finding #3 validated (see Table 8).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 161

Table 8
Validated Stakeholder Assumed Influences in KMO in Finding #3
Stakeholder Assumed
Influence
Category in Gap Analysis Validated
Yes, High Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
What Teachers Need to Do
Teachers need technology
training to learn new
technological skills and how
to apply those skills
procedurally to increase
technology-infused
instructional practices at the
school site.
Procedural Knowledge (P) V
What Teachers Determine
About Themselves
Teachers individually must
redefine the term
“professional identity” to
include technology-infused
instruction in practitioner
self-identity.
Metacognition (M) V
Self-efficacy

Teachers need to believe they
are able to deliver instruction
that includes technological
tools or online forums.
Motivation—Self-Efficacy
(M, SE)
V
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Teachers are not accountable
to peers or supervisors for
using technology-infused
instruction.
Organization (O, CM) V
Cultural Setting Influence
2:
Teachers lack strong positive
role models of technology-
infused practice.
Organization (O, CS) V

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 162

Supporting Theme #1: I do not matter to my organization. Teacher beliefs about the
degree to which they mattered in the organization connected to self-efficacy and organizational
barriers. Consistent with Schein (2010), there was an underlying, permeating, and invisible
cultural structure of disconnect between teachers and the organization at large, in terms of
teacher needs, wants, and access that could support PD trainings and effective application to
instructional practice. A “no” culture can destroy innovation. Teachers who think the
organization will not allow them to impact learning in new ways question their purpose and
believe their ideas do not matter (Couros, 2015). Participants revealed this way of thinking.
Some teachers were marginalized based on their department. In response to district PD
training, Matthew stated,
When we have professional development talking about those things, it’s like, why am I
here? This isn’t helping me, but I’ve done several where I’ve met with just a bunch of art
teachers that we did it once a month, and those were just awesome ’cause it was content
knowledge that we needed, different ways to instruct, and teach the different things that
we need to teach that we don’t ever get as a school wide which would be a waste of time
to do it as a school wide ’cause we’re two people out of the 80 teachers we have.
Matthew made a clear distinction between PD training that was valuable to him because it
centered on his subject area, and district PD trainings that did not include him because the
training content did not support art instruction. However, this seemed to be an expectation he
had of his organization. Matthew’s words indicated that his department should not be the focus
of learning because there were only two teachers in art. Matthew did not see his department in
the same league as other departments. Stacey described PD trainings and her department in the
same way. She commented,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 163

I feel it’s more beneficial for me when we do our Special Ed trainings every month than
maybe the ones that are specifically for the school, because a lot of those things aren’t
applicable to us, or even for us to implement them because we are just dealing with other
things. There’s other focuses and just priorities, we talked about those for Special Ed,
than there is for just a General Ed teacher, and so, sometimes a professional development
that we go to for the school I don’t feel like is really that beneficial for us. I think out
time could be better spent doing things just as our Special Ed department.
Stacey felt a sense of inclusion in her own department, but not in the organization at large,
regarding the content of PD trainings and their relevance to both school wide needs and the
needs of learners serviced in Special Education classes. The researcher also noticed that in the
PD training where researcher was also presenter and observer, that Stacey took a backseat in the
discussions about blended learning. Art took center stage in the discussions, although there
remained a great deal of negativity about teaching online—why it could not work and the
obstacles teachers faced.
Teachers wanted PD trainings that addressed the kind of training they desired, not the kind of
training the organization thought they should have. PD trainings that were inconsistent with
those ideals did not boost self-efficacy. District PD trainings were top-down. Constance
described the scenario as “sitting in a classroom listening to someone lecture”. Consistent with
cognitive overload theory and knowledge acquisition, learners who did not have time to process
information, such as procedural steps, did not retain it as part of germane load (DeLeeuw &
Mayer, 2008; Plass et al., 2010). Estelle remarked that the trainings were often “over her head”.
Consistent with Pintrich (2003), adaptive self-efficacy and competency beliefs motivate learners.
Estelle remarked that she felt less confident when she did not have someone to help her. She
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 164

described procedural training as a negative experience, one where she could not grasp the
material:
It could be really important if it was actually valuable. A lot of times I feel like our
professional development is okay, you watch me show you this site, and I’m going to fly
through it because I know it backwards and forwards, and here’s the website that you can
go to if you know, so want to. So, they’re not even allowing us to explore the site with
their guidance. Instead, it’s the dog and pony show, although we’re supposed to use it to
be more interactive with the students. And many times, we don’t even have a computer
in front of us to even see how the thing words. And they don’t print you out a recipe card
to go step-by-step through it because they know the site, it’s not a problem for them.
Estelle added that when the technology coach did return to help her, the technology coach went
quickly through the material and did the procedures for her. Procedural training presented issues
of reduced meaningful learning (germane load) and reduced confidence. Heather echoed
Estelle’s concerns. She said that during the PD trainings, teachers did not have a one-on-one
device to use, to be able to learn and integrate what PD presenters were delivering. Constance
corroborated that she did not have the tools to “replicate” what PD presenters demonstrated.
Teachers needed PD trainings to be more fruitful. Hazel wanted more quality in the PD training.
She stated in her survey, “What if we brought in professional trainers, instead of paying for a few
to go to Phoenix and then come back and never share anything they learned.” In each account of
what PD lacked, the recipients of PD training, the teachers, did not matter to the organization
because the content was impertinent and the follow-up was deficient. Consistent with Plair
(2008), PD that was open to all practitioners at one time was not subject-sensitive, and teachers
often returned to their classrooms never to use the information or became confused about where
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 165

to start. Teachers needed strong “knowledge brokers”. District-level personnel in charge of PD
training did not consider the best way to deliver PD for maximum benefit in terms of technology-
infused instruction and application that was personally meaningful, applicable, and memorable.
Teacher voice was missing in the establishment. Respondents did not share examples of
speaking out about their concerns with PD training to supervisors, which supported the barriers
of organizational silence and lack of stakeholder empowerment in change processes (Lewis,
2011; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Although some teachers had chosen to progress with
technology-infused instruction, maintaining the status quo was acceptable. Teachers reported
that supervisors did not expect them to change. Hazel wrote in her survey, “Well, here’s a novel
idea…what if PD were designed in such a way to model some of the learning/teaching changes
admin wanted to see?” Hazel freely shared her sentiment on paper, but she did not indicate that
she had taken that concern to her superiors. Also, when asked in the survey how teaching with
technology and/or the Internet was evaluated by supervisors at the school site, respondents wrote
either that they did not know, or that it was not evaluated. Estelle also voiced,
The administrators like to see technology being used in the lessons, but his year my
supervisor hasn’t made the return visits promised to see the technology being used more
fully. That creates frustration on my part since she hasn’t followed through on as
promised, so my evaluation may not be as high as it could have been because she wasn’t
there to see the technology being used.
Estelle did not indicate that she had spoken to her administrator about this missing component of
administrative follow-through. Consistent with Grossman and Salas (2011), who posit that
support is a needed component of training and transfer, in the focus group, teachers remarked, “If
teachers want to use new technology, they should get support.” The way teachers described the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 166

landscape was one of missing support. Furthermore, not one teacher stated what he/she had
done or would do to ascertain that support, which revealed absence of voice. In her survey,
Hazel described a significant disconnect between herself and the technology department. “I feel
as though I am using the same old methods because when I find something cool I think I can use
the district has everything blocked or the WiFi doesn’t work correctly.” Hazel described the
technology department as having a “total lack of understanding of education”. She added, “I am
beginning to either stop using that which doesn’t work or find ways to get around their
stupidity.” Hazel clearly expressed that the technology department dismissed her needs as a
teacher. She had no voice in that regard. Hazel was also the participant who dropped out of the
study after the interview. Hazel had shared with the researcher that she was concerned about
submitting her initial survey responses via district email. She was the participant who was most
concerned about anonymity. Hazel’s behaviors supported the barrier of organizational silence.
The organization lacked genuine, caring emphasis of the individual practitioner. Teacher
proficiency mattered only to a degree. Administrators and the technology coach did not
personalize teachers or their classrooms by making regular visits and visits that exemplified
opportunities to learn. Consistent with Khachatryan (2015), teachers may or may not change
teaching practice based on administrative feedback. However, validated feedback about
instruction can motivate teachers who often lack affirmation and feel isolated. In the focus
group, Constance answered the question about being ready to teach in a blended learning model
in the upcoming school year by rating herself. She said, “On a scale of 1 to 10, if required [to
use technology], 8. If required or not, 8.5.” Constance’s hypothetical self-rating indicated that
her confidence level increased if supervisors were not watching observing, or evaluating her
based on technology. Confidence was lower if supervisors were evaluating her, which suggested
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 167

further disconnect between what she might envision herself doing successfully with technology,
and a nebulous expectation of proficiency that her supervisors might have—if they ever visited
her classroom to observe her in that regard. Other teachers indicated in the focus group that they
were “not very ready” to step into a blended learning environment. Related literature supports
that the organization was communicating a message of discrepancy, not efficacy, to stakeholders
because they did not feel they could do what the organization was asking them to do (Lewis,
2011). Therefore, did the organization really want teachers to change? Training that was not
teacher-centered impacted self-efficacy, did not magnify teacher voice, and did not support
technology-infused instruction.
Supporting Theme #2: PD can be successful as an incremental set of steps toward
progressive change. Innovative PD delivery was personally meaningful for practitioners.
Consistent with Dyer et al. (2011), teachers positively absorbed innovative changes that were
incremental. PD trainings were important to teachers if (in the words of Estelle) PD could
“inform their instruction”. Grossman and Salas (2011) assert that transfer occurs if trainees see
the training as useful. All seven respondents had a positive experience in the innovative PD.
Practitioners indicated that PD trainings on blended learning mattered. In the focus group,
when asked how much training teachers needed to be able to use online or blended learning
models, teachers replied, “A lot. It depends on the generation of the teacher as well. Training is
age and experience dependent. As much as needed.” Teachers were not disassociated with PD
trainings as a source of learning. Teachers needed PD to be a personalized event that included
relevant content and follow-up. When asked to what degree PD improved department outcomes,
teachers responded, “When done correctly, it’s great. However, it is rarely executed efficiently.
When PD is effective and clear, it can enhance our department outcomes, make it easier to form
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 168

outcomes, and meet those outcomes.” Constance mentioned that PD was what made her a good
teacher, but that PD at this district was ineffective. She stated, “Without professional
development I would not be where I’m at today. Could I be a better teacher with professional
development? Yeah, ’cause the day you decide you can’t be a better teacher is the day you
should retire.” The quality of the PD was the issue.
The organization currently did not provide PD training that addressed teaching in new
models. The organization emphasized using tools, devices, and programs in technology training.
In her survey, Estelle stated, “I really haven’t had any PD trainings that address teaching with the
Internet.” Constance echoed that experience. Heather remarked in her survey that the focus of
technology training during PD days was, “On how to use the school online grading system,
Splashtop, and reflector.” Heather added, “I have learned most of it on my own time
experimenting with the program. I have had little training on the Internet in professional
development days in the last four years.” District PD trainings prioritized functions and features
but did not emphasize changing teacher mindsets and transforming individuals to become
powerful educators.
Teachers expressed a strong desire to learn from one another. When teachers talked about
what had changed their practice the most, the consensus was peer interaction. Heather stated on
her survey,
Professional development at [Senior High School X] has had little impact on my use of
technology and the Internet in my classroom. Other teachers that share with me how they
use technology and the Internet in their classrooms has affected me the most.
Collaboration was important to practitioners. Feiman-Nemser (2008) explains that high quality
preparation, induction, and professional development can promote changes in teaching, and that
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 169

schools with a collaborative culture promote good teaching. In the focus group, teachers
described the relationship between peer role models and teaching online or in a blended learning
model. Collectively, teachers said, “It’s huge. Having someone pave the way is beneficial.
Collaboration, trust, and working relationship are paramount. Peers encourage us to enhance our
craft, help us fix our technology problems; they guide, inspire, and lead us.” Respondents voiced
how much they desired peer mentorships in that learning process. Metacognition concerning
practice could be positive and life-changing if teachers had the right support.
In the first PD training (there were two trainings to accommodate teacher schedules and
availability that day), teachers demonstrated positive collaboration in action. PD training #1 was
very opinionated and interactive. Teachers talked to each other as soon as they walked into the
lab to get started. The discussion was productive. Each time the researcher-presenter posed a
question, teachers willingly and openly shared responses, even though their definitions about
online learning differed. Teachers formed two groups, and discussed how they might a class
online. Following, in the share-out, teachers described what they were doing or might do with
blended learning. Heather explained how students completed their classwork on the iPad.
Matthew discussed how he could add videos or tutorials for an advanced student. Estelle
mentioned how she could use Turnitin in the future. Constance discussed putting worksheets
into an online format that students could earn credit for doing. Teachers grappled concepts
together.
PD training #2 was somewhat dissimilar, but had a positive outcome. Only two study
participants were present. Although Betty and Hazel shared their ideas about blended learning
and what Hazel termed her “mobile classroom” because she had put components in digital
format, these two teachers did not participate in creating a hypothetical online setting for one of
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 170

their classes (Betty and Hazel skipped this part). Betty and Hazel went straight to share-out.
However, Betty and Hazel did offer ideas about how they could integrate blended learning: split
screen discussion board, questions during lessons, or surveys on learning experience. Betty said
she could use the Internet for books read as a class or for grammar quizzes. In subsequent
discussion, Hazel was very concerned that blended learning was not relevant for her students
because of the tools the district provided. Hazel stressed that a Smartphone is personally
meaningful. She said, “I can’t live without my cell phone, but that’s not how students seem to
behave when it comes to the technology the school provides.” Hazel’s point about the type of
tools was important in understanding utility value both for teachers and students. The researcher
noticed also in this second PD training that the participants were not so interactive as the
morning group had been. The participants went through the stages of the presentation very
quickly. The government teacher (Hazel) spoke much more. The Special Ed teacher (Betty) was
a first-year teacher but was not new to the classroom. Although the PD training experiences
were different in terms of collaborative interaction, when teachers self-reported during the
interview process about the value or worth of the innovative PD training, views were unanimous.
The PD trainings in the study were a small step toward identity transformation. Teachers
liked what they experienced and they wanted additional similar trainings. In the focus group,
teachers described an ideal PD training: information presented in small groups with technology
present and available for each person, with time to implement with direction, step-by-step with
follow up, hands-on, time to implement, well-planned, and applicable. Teachers voiced how
valuable the PD training was in this study in this regard. Comas-Quinn (2011) explains that
trainings need to include teacher self and teacher identity in the learning process. Estelle
remarked,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 171

It was a lot more collaborate among the colleagues because we could brainstorm with
each other about…what we could do within our own classes. And so, in that aspect it
was more engaging for me as a student learner to be able to go write on the board where I
thought things were, or where I belonged, according to my thoughts and ideas and then
be able to talk with people of different disciplines. We really never get the opportunity to
do that.
Estelle’s experience suggested possible flourishing of self-image when she indicated that she
began to question where she “belonged”. Matthew shared a similar sentiment about PD and the
benefit of collaboration. He said,
I think it was more helpful. I’m trying to think more of the ones I’ve been to at this
building with technology. The other ones at the building maybe showed the program, but
not really explored how it’s applied. I feel like this, there was more talk about actual
application. This is how you could use it with English, this is how you could use it with
math.
Matthew not only saw a benefit to the PD content, but he also learned about different
applications from his peers, which opened the door for possible future consideration of the worth
of blended learning. Stacey stated that the PD training “kept her attention”. She said,
It was interesting for me because we talked a lot about differentiation which is right up
my alley, so I felt it was applicable…Some of the other professional developments I kind
of zone out and don’t really pay attention because it doesn’t pertain to us as much, but
this one was good because I am dealing with this program, because I’m helping students
deal with it, so it was good for me to learn more about it and kind of learn how to learn
Schoology.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 172

Stacey emphasized that the innovative strategy of collaborative discussion in PD helped her to
(a) learn, and (b) see how she could help her students learn using the LMS. The PD training did
not distance her due to irrelevant content that was geared more toward the mainstream
environment. Stacey stayed true to her original statement in the survey about technology as well,
that it is a “collaborative effort”. Betty also voiced that collaboration in PD was beneficial. She
stated,
It kinda gave me a perspective more from other people’s ideas of what technology’s out
there. It was nice to kinda talk about what’s working and what’s not working. And in a
small setting. That was really nice. I liked it.
Constance also discussed the value of collaboration. She stated,
I personally am at a place in my technology usage where I need to say okay, this is what
I’m doing, what are you doing, listen to them talk about it, and then gather ideas of what I
can try to implement and that for me, was really helpful to be able to talk about things
and to be able to see where other teachers were at.
Constance revealed that she really wanted more opportunities to discuss—that she needed peer
interaction and feedback to progress as a teacher. She added,
What I would have really liked, is if that could’ve been a full day. I could’ve seen that
developing…So, we had the conversation piece. What I would’ve liked to have had is
more time to go in and talk about Schoology. If it could’ve developed into that I think it
would’ve been even better.
Constance’s commentary and wish for further collaboration about practice revealed that PD that
emphasized learning through collaboration and peer mentorships was not only missing at this
school site, but was a key component in teacher development of knowledge schemas and
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 173

procedural skills. By the end of the study, in the focus group, the list of “different types of
technology teachers can use” had expanded. It was more complete than the original statements
teachers provided in their initial surveys. Technology definitions included ideas such as “Web-
based classroom”, “apps for teaching”, “Skype”, and “Smartphone”, among several other
applications. The list of different technology tools and avenues was much more exhaustive than
at the beginning of the study, which evidenced teacher learning based on their collaboration and
discussion of technology-infused instruction.
The newness of the PD was also rewarding. Heather stated,
I think it was helpful to discuss what’s actually out there available for us, and how well
we can use it. That whole being open and discussing, that has never been done before.
Usually it’s this is what we have, and this is how you should use it, and this is how you
shouldn’t, and if you’re not using it you’re not a good teacher.
Heather made a distinction that the questioning during the PD training was significant. She said
that in the opening of the PD, she had, “never really thought what’s the difference between
online, blended.” Heather added,
Getting the thoughts out there, what people believe it is and how they could apply it
rather than just “I don’t know”. Sometimes I feel like you go and they just try to, they
want you to use as much technology as possible so they look good.
Heather’s comments about being able to share vocally what she was doing in her classroom
contrasted the type of PD that was familiar to her. Regarding her open criticism about the
technology department, she asked the researcher, “Does that sound bad?” This indicated that the
innovative PD encouraged a new behavior, sharing opinions and thoughts verbally—and
questioning her own actions metacognitively, which was not part of organizational culture.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 174

Innovative PD opened doors for discussion and collaboration, shared thinking, and learning.
Consistent with Plair (2008), learning required a different kind of professional development
resource that could ensure that technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge intersect and
merge. The innovative approach to the PD training (questions, collaboration, discussion)
provided opportunities for teachers to demonstrate prior knowledge, opened the door for future
PD trainings where teachers could develop procedural skills, and supported the possibility of
increased self-efficacy, new attainment value, and changed utility value.
The innovative PD also encouraged metacognition. Hazel commented,
I think it was nice to be able to talk about and think about what my perspective was on
technology. Sometimes, the professional development we have on technology we’re
working on things, but…there’s not the application in the classroom.
Hazel mentioned thinking about her “perspective” was a metacognitive effort that reflected the
presence of small steps that could lead to self-image reconstruction. Estelle made a striking
comment in the focus group. The group shared, “Later in our careers we’re losing that
enthusiasm and innovation.” Estelle added a poignant remark to the tail end of the discussion
and this study,
That’s crucial for continuing the “good teaching” that needs to be present for blended
learning to work. It’s necessary for good teaching anywhere to work, because are you a
teacher with 20 years’ experience, or are you a teacher who has repeated the first year 20
times.
These teachers craved progression, nurture, and stimulation to increase the quality of their
teaching practice. Like blooms beneath the snow, inklings of possibility for improved
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 175

instruction, changed practice, and identity formation were visible. There was hope at Senior
High School X for positive organizational change, given the right combination of emphases.
The PD training was effective, albeit short and restricted due to time constraints within the
progression of the study. PD that emphasized teachers and teacher learning was not a novel
idea, yet it was innovative because the organization did not recognize how powerful that effort
could be. The PD training itself challenged organizational barriers of silence, irrelevant content,
and lack of follow-up or access. Opportunity was ripe if the appropriate personnel was in place
to deliver.
Pre- and Post- Innovation
Five teachers completed the initial survey. Betty and Matthew entered the study in Stage
Two, the PD training. The researcher had questioned if two teachers entering in Stage Two
would be more inclined to use blended learning than the original five participants. Evidence
revealed that Betty and Matthew did not necessarily have to participate in the initial survey for
PD to impact them positively. Betty and Matthew were forthcoming in the data about the
positive nature of an innovative PD. Their responses mirrored the responses of other teachers
who had participated in Stage One of the study. The researcher may have been able to use
Betty’s or Matthew’s ideas pre-innovation, but their missing remarks impacted that stage of the
study only, in that the researcher had only five sets of answers instead of seven sets, to review, at
the onset of the study.
Discussion
The survey results supported findings, and the findings expanded an understanding of those
initial results in Stage One of the study. However, the survey results as a stand-alone component
would have been pale in comparison to the one-on-one interviews and subsequent PD training
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 176

and focus group responses that substantiated the findings. Findings validated all stakeholder
assumed influences in KMO. This study was rich because the researcher applied the strategy of
triangulation. Data allowed the researcher to answer all three research questions without
hesitation. Being able to sift through the many words and phrases teachers used to describe their
experiences with blended learning, was invaluable in discovering the outcomes the researcher
presented in the Findings section of Chapter Four. Teachers described those experiences in
detail. Their voices were the crux of the findings.
Summary
Chapter Four presented survey results, and three findings to the original research questions in
this study. The study was wholly qualitative. The researcher conducted the study in five stages,
used evidence from all components of the study, and included researcher reflective notes and
analytic memos as data. The researcher presented survey results in three sections: KMO. The
researcher analyzed stakeholder assumed influences in KMO in the three findings to the original
research questions, and revisited survey results in the findings discussion. Each finding
answered one research question. The researcher developed the Findings section with themes that
supported those three answers. A table in each Finding section revealed the key stakeholder
assumed influences in KMO that the finding (and supporting themes) addressed. Discussion of
stakeholder assumed influences in KMO was interwoven in the Findings section, which reflected
interrelated constructs in the CF for this project. Those discoveries led to the solutions and
recommendations presented in Chapter Five.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 177

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—HELPING TEACHERS
AND THE ORGANIZATION FLOURISH
Solutions and Recommendations to Increase Blended Learning
Teachers at Senior High School X needed a set of solutions to the problem of reduced
inclination to use ICT, specifically, online or blended learning at the school site. Chapter Four
provided a window into the why behind this problem through evidence that supported three main
findings to the original research questions. According to Clark and Estes (2008), a gap analysis
investigation into KMO provides appropriate solutions to a performance problem. Once these
gaps have been established and causes have been determined, workable solutions and
recommendations for organizational success can be put in place. The following are the
recommendations for District X that address the original stakeholder assumed influences in
KMO for this research project.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The stakeholder assumed influences in knowledge fell into three categories:
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. Knowledge is essential to learning (Krathwohl,
2002). All five of the assumed influences in knowledge were supported by the research findings.
Each assumed influence had significant impact on stakeholder performance in technology-
infused instruction. Each knowledge influence required a specific solution and recommendation
to close the performance gaps in knowledge. Table 9 presents those knowledge
recommendations (see Table 9).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 178

Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principles and
Citations
Context-Specific
Recommendation
What Teachers Need
to Know (D)

Teachers collectively
need to develop shared
definitions of
technological
terminology
(technology,
technology training,
online learning,
blended learning) to
cultivate new
instructional
approaches that include
technology and new
schemas about effective
classroom practice.
V Y Information
Processing Theory
and Declarative
Knowledge (D)
Information can be
the necessary tool
stakeholders need to
perform a task
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

In long-term
memory, different
types of information
exist, and that
information must be
organized, must be
quickly accessible,
and must be
practical for learners
to use (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2009).
Provide district
personnel,
administrators, and
teacher practitioners
a straightforward,
informational
PowerPoint and
hard copy print-out
for school wide and
departmental use,
that defines
common knowledge
and shared
definitions of
terminology
associated with
teaching with the
Internet.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 179

Table 9 Continued
What Teachers Need
to Do (P)

Teachers need
technology training to
learn new technological
skills and how to apply
those skills
procedurally to increase
technology-infused
instructional practices
at the school site.
V Y Cognitive Load
Theory and
Procedural
Knowledge (P)
Training can help
stakeholders practice
necessary skills to
develop competency
in working toward
performance goals
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Provide teacher
practitioners
multiple innovative
PD trainings where
peer role models
show practitioners
how to apply steps
for blended learning
instruction, and
where extraneous
load is reduced
because trainings
magnify procedural
knowledge that has
the potential to
increase meaningful
and effective
teaching with the
Internet.
What Teachers
Determine About
Their Teaching
Related to Technology
#1 (M)

Teachers need to
identify their beliefs
about knowledge and
teaching knowledge to
further develop these
schemas to determine
the most effective
classroom practices.
V Y

Cognitive Load
Theory and
Metacognition (M)
Two components of
metacognition are
awareness (knowing
how one learns), and
control (knowing
how to monitor and
control one’s
learning)
(Krathwohl, 2002;
Mayer, 2011).

Learners have a
positive relationship
with learning when
they emphasize
schema acquisition
and automation in
the germane load
(Plass et al., 2010).
Provide teacher
practitioners same-
subject area training
mentorships with
on-site colleagues
who have used the
Internet successfully
in instruction, so
teachers can
consider new ways
of thinking about
teaching, and can
record and track
mentor-teacher
interactions to
reveal continued
learning (changed
thinking and/or
practice).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 180

Table 9 Continued
What Teachers
Determine About
Their Teaching
Related to Technology
#2 (M)

Teachers need to
identify and evaluate
individually what
traditional instructional
views and approaches
can be altered to
include technology-
infused practice.
V Y Cognitive
Dissonance Theory
and Metacognition
(M)
Learners use meta-
strategies to
determine whether a
solution plan is
working, or if a
strategy is
appropriate;
metacognitive
learners self-regulate
(Mayer, 2011).
Learners should
promote the
evaluative process at
the beginning of an
organizational effort
(Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
Provide teacher
practitioners a PD
evaluative
component at the
beginning of the
school year, that
progresses
throughout each
trimester, such as a
revised professional
growth goal plan
whereby the
teacher, not the
administrator,
retains control of
the evaluative
process by
identifying and
justifying in writing
instructional views
and approaches.
What Teachers
Determine About
Themselves (M)

Teachers individually
must redefine the term
“professional identity”
to include technology-
infused instruction in
practitioner self-
identity.
V Y Cognitive
Dissonance Theory
and Metacognition
(M)
Education can equip
stakeholders with
the necessary
knowledge to handle
problems and
challenges,
furthermore,
cognitive approaches
to learning involve
metacognitive
strategy training
(Rueda, 2011).

When metacognition
improves, learning
improves (Baker,
2006).
Provide teacher
practitioners
monthly verbal,
written,
departmental, and
schoolwide
collaborative PLC
opportunities for
on-the-job self-
reflection that
requires redefining
instructional roles in
the classroom to
include teaching
with the Internet.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 181

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers collectively
need to develop shared definitions of technological terminology (technology, technology
training, online learning, blended learning) to cultivate new instructional approaches that include
technology and new schemas about effective classroom practice. Factual knowledge is a form of
declarative knowledge; learners who acquire factual knowledge learn terminology, specific
details, and elements to become better acquainted with a discipline and to be able to solve
problems within it (Krathwohl, 2002). Information processing involves two aspects of long-term
memory: type of information, and how information is organized. Automaticity increases the
efficiency of information processing (Schraw & McCrudden, 2009). Data in Chapter Four
revealed that teacher practitioners did not share common knowledge of online or blended
learning. Teachers must identify and build upon their prior knowledge of online and blended
learning models to close gaps in knowledge that prevent consideration of instructional
approaches that differ from the traditional face-to-face model.
Rueda (2011) describes information processing as a focus on internal cognitive events that
connect new information to similar information where learned knowledge can change or
combine with new knowledge. Telling teachers what they need to know encourages them to
build schemas based on new practices that include new definitions related to technology and the
Internet. According to Clark and Estes (2008), stakeholders need information that can reduce
their uncertainty about how to achieve a performance goal. Providing teachers with specific
terminology about teaching with the Internet can be a form of knowledge transfer, and can
promote changes in teacher professional identity that include a recognition of technology-based
principles as part of daily practice. Schraw and McCrudden (2009) posit that highly effective
learners possess a significant amount of organized knowledge in a specific learning domain. The
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 182

recommendation is to see teachers as learners, and to provide for them workable, clear
definitions about technological teaching forums. This enables teachers can build upon traditional
teaching practices by redefining terminology that impacts their instruction.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need
technology training to learn new technological skills and how to apply those skills procedurally
to increase technology-infused instructional practices at the school site. Procedural knowledge is
the knowledge of how to do something through techniques or methods (Krathwohl, 2002).
Cognitive load theory espouses individual and/or group learning; a differentiation exists between
which type of learning is superior, given factors such as transaction costs, transfer problems, and
retention problems (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2009b). Data in Chapter Four revealed that
teachers did not know the procedural steps for integrating the Internet into instruction through an
online or blended learning model and that teachers needed modeling of procedural steps and
practice of new knowledge to retain information and to make a transfer from traditional teaching
practice to practice that includes technological forums. Teachers need solid peer role models, a
reliable and accessible technology coach, and consistent training in aspects of blended learning
instruction to close gaps in procedural knowledge and to increase classroom teaching with the
Internet.
Mayer (2011) describes procedures as one of five types of knowledge that are most relevant
to academic learning. Information should be presented in parts that reduce extraneous
processing, manage essential processing, and foster generative processing. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), stakeholders need training (how-to strategies, opportunities, and expert
feedback) to acquire “how to” knowledge and skills. Providing teachers with innovative quality
PD trainings that are consistent and geared toward meaningful learning can help teachers learn
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 183

how to integrate technology and the Internet in stages to develop new teaching practices that
might alter teacher professional identity positively. Germane load is the third source of cognitive
load whereby learners have a positive relationship with learning because schema acquisition and
automation are emphasized (Plass et al., 2010). The recommendation is to emphasize the
germane load in trainings and in teacher practice of new skills with technological forums, to
improve procedural skill development that supports the solidification of new forms of teaching
online, specifically, blended learning.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need to
identify and evaluate individually what traditional instructional views and approaches can be
altered to include technology-infused practice. Metacognition is awareness and knowledge of
one’s own cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). Cognitive dissonance theorizes that elements of
cognition can correspond with what an individual does or feels, or with what exists
environmentally (Festinger, 1957). Data in Chapter Four revealed that teachers thought about
their own teaching both through internal and external lenses. Teachers must identify what the
traditional teaching model signifies to them, both internally and externally, to help teachers
reshape their thinking about what is possible regarding technology-infused instruction and to
close gaps in metacognitive practice that prevent change from happening in classroom
instruction.
Mayer (2011) describes metacognitive learners as those who self-regulate through
metacognitive awareness and control, and as individuals who take responsibility for their own
learning. According to Clark and Estes (2008), stakeholders need education to improve
conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge and skills to prepare for challenges and
problems that could arise. Effective on-the-job evaluation starts at the beginning of a process
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 184

(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Providing teachers with an introspective PD opportunity is
an educational effort that can support metacognitive learning about individual teaching practice,
and can support change in teacher professional identity. Dissonance can arise from
inconsistency in logic (Festinger, 1957). The recommendation is to require a PD evaluative
component at the beginning of the school year. Teachers identify what part of their learning and
teaching practice they are changing, could change, or are not changing to include technological
forums, and why. Teachers retain ownership of that metacognitive process through self-
evaluative stages that also identify evidence of instructional practice on the mandated
professional growth plan.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The stakeholder assumed influences in motivation fell into two motivational
theories: self-efficacy and expectancy value. Motivation involves a primary goal of supporting
high levels of confidence among employees about personal ability to achieve specific
performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research findings supported all three of the assumed
influences in motivation. Each assumed influence had significant impact on stakeholder
performance in technology-infused instruction. Each motivation influence required a specific
solution and recommendation to close the performance gaps in knowledge. Table 10 presents
those motivation recommendations (see Table 10).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 185

Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principles and
Citations
Context-Specific
Recommendations
Self-efficacy

Teachers need to
believe they are able to
deliver instruction that
includes technological
tools or online forums.
V Y Personal agency can
be individual or
collective, and beliefs
about ability impact
behavior (Bandura,
2000).
High confidence in
capabilities can lead
learners to complete a
task initially, and can
promote resilience
when the initial task
is unsuccessful
(Pintrich, 2003).

Provide teachers
consistent feedback
(includes
acknowledgement
to staff of
successes) during
departmental PLC
meetings and
faculty meetings, by
having teachers
collaborate in
partnerships to offer
and receive help
related to
instructional tasks
that are incremental,
and promote
teaching with the
Internet in
individual
classrooms.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 186

Table 10 Continued
Expectancy-Value
Theory—Attainment
Value

Teachers need to see
the value of technology
in the classroom, based
on self-perceptions and
self-image related to
professional identity.
V Y Teachers will place
value on what is
critical to self-image
(Eccles, 2009).
Prompting learners to
reflect on value and
personal utility about
topics can impact
learning motivation
(Schmidt et al.,
2012).

Provide teachers
with a graphic
organizer that is part
of the professional
growth plan and is
supported by PD,
where teachers
record changes in
self-perceptions,
observations, and
instructional values,
related to what they
see themselves,
their mentors, and
peer role models
doing that reflects
positive self-image
connected to
teaching with the
Internet.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 187

Table 10 Continued
Expectancy-Value
Theory—Utility Value

Teachers need to see
the value of using
technology in the
classroom as an
innovative
enhancement to
traditional instructional
approaches.
V Y A task’s utility can be
important to an
individual’s sense of
self when
accomplishing a
personally
meaningful goal
(Hulleman et al.,
2010).
An “innovator
mindset” is the belief
that the development
of abilities,
intelligence, and
talents lead to
creating new and
better ideas;
technology is a tool
instead of a learning
outcome (Couros,
2015).
Provide teachers
practice with
technological
forums and share-
out time as part of
regular PD trainings
and meetings where
teachers voice
evolving classroom
practices that are
personally
meaningful, and are
an addition to
traditional
instructional
emphases that
teachers have kept
in place.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 188

Self-efficacy. Teachers need to believe they are able to deliver instruction that includes
technological tools or online forums. Self-efficacy is an individual and a collective construct in
social cognition (Bandura, 2000). Teachers need to have certain levels of confidence to repeat
tasks until they are successful (Pintrich, 2003). Data in Chapter Four revealed that several
teachers did not have high self-efficacy in teaching with a blended learning model, but that they
did have strong peer relationships. This learning dynamic suggests that teachers could benefit
from solid peer interactions to increase individual and collective self-efficacy. Teachers can
model how to use blended learning with a strong emphasis on partner feedback to increase skill
development. The recommendation is for the organization to provide ample opportunity during
PLC time and faculty time, for teachers to become department peer role models for teaching with
the Internet, and peer consultants for collective, partnership-based feedback that promotes
teaching with the Internet in individual classrooms.
Successful learning is based on motivation—motivation causes learners to pursue a goal,
persist, and put in the required mental effort to keep going; lower self-efficacy can increase
mental effort when tasks are difficult (Clark, Howard, & Early, 2006). Teachers who believe
their hard work will bring rewards will work harder to learn (Mayer, 2011). From a theoretical
perspective, challenging teachers to be peer role models, to learn from one another by sharing
best practices, and to emphasize individualized feedback related to teaching with the Internet,
can help close the gap of reduced inclination to use technology in the classroom by increasing
practitioner self-efficacy in online settings.
Attainment value. Teachers need to see the value of technology in the classroom, based on
self-perceptions and self-image related to professional identity. How teachers see themselves
impacts what they value (Eccles, 2009). Perceived task value has a profound implication on
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 189

motivation (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). Data in Chapter Four revealed that teaching with the
Internet was not a direct description of teacher job duty or self-image. The lack of technology-
oriented thinking among practitioners suggests that they could benefit from increased
opportunities to transform identity related to teaching online. The recommendation is for the
organization to require teachers to identify and record changes in self-perception associated with
teaching online as part of the professional growth plan process in teacher evaluation.
Learners need to be encouraged to reflect on their values and personal utility (Schmidt et al.,
2012). If schools are teams, then all team members matter in terms of motivation for the
common good and progressive practice. According to Clark et al. (2006), the weakest member
of a team faces the greatest motivational challenge; that individual must believe that his/her
contribution to the team is vital to team success. From a theoretical perspective, challenging
teachers to include teaching with the Internet as part of professional identity is based on team-
oriented thinking as a value. By providing teachers a scaffolding process to learn and grow
through self-reflection about teaching purpose, teachers who feel “weak” as participants in
online instruction can begin to develop and change their thinking in this facet of learning.
Teachers can become personally accountable for that change by seeing themselves as part of a
team that includes online learning as significant to teaching.
Utility value. Teachers need to see the value of using technology in the classroom as an
innovative enhancement to traditional instructional approaches. Tasks become important when
they are personally meaningful (Hulleman et al., 2010). Innovation is a mindset (Couros, 2015).
Data in Chapter Four revealed that many teachers were comfortable with their current teaching
practice. For teachers to increase utility value, teachers need to see that technology-infused
instruction can change classroom practice for the better—that technology is not a substitute,
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 190

rather, becomes a valuable enhancement to what teachers are already doing. The
recommendation is for the organization to provide multiple PD opportunities for modeling of
teaching practice with the Internet, and for sharing those practices with colleagues to encourage
practitioners to see that online settings are valuable because they are another form of meaningful
instruction.
Motivation means “to move” (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). If teachers are to move more
deeply into a frame of thinking that includes teaching online or in blended models, values must
be the driving force. Teachers’ sense of self is connected to what they value and what they
expect (Hulleman et al., 2010). Teachers’ choices are linked to expectations for success (Eccles,
2009). From a theoretical perspective, challenging teachers to think of teaching with technology
as valuable necessitates shifts in thinking about self, regarding utility. Teachers must expect that
teaching online or in blended learning models can benefit them and their students, and that
teaching in these dimensions is worth the change. By providing teachers regular and consistent
interactions with colleagues who have made this change, teachers might begin to see the value of
changing practice that does not replace the familiar, but rather enhances the familiar to include
more options for pedagogy, student learning forums, and academic assessment.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The stakeholder assumed influences in organization fell into two cultural
landscapes: cultural models and cultural settings. Three main sources create culture:
organizational beliefs, values, and assumptions, group member learning experiences, and beliefs,
values, and assumptions of new members and leaders (Schein, 2010). Research findings
supported all four of the assumed influences in organization. Each assumed influence had
significant impact on stakeholder performance in technology-infused instruction. Each
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 191

organizational influence required a specific solution and recommendation to close the
performance gaps in organizational culture. Organizational obstacles can be opportunities
(Couros, 2015). Table 11 presents those organization recommendations (see Table 11).
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principles and
Citations

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Teachers are not
accountable to peers or
supervisors for using
technology-infused
instruction.
V Y Teachers are
professionally
accountable to their
peers (Stecher & Kirby,
2004).

Effective leaders put
the needs of the
organization above
their own by: operating
from a “we” instead of
an “I” perspective,
listening first, and
speaking last (Drucker,
2004).
Provide district
and school
administrators
regular PD
trainings on the
importance of
shared vision
regarding new
teaching practices,
and modify the
teacher evaluation
template to include
technology-
infused instruction
performance goals.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 192

Table 11 Continued
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Teachers have accepted
their cultural roles—
their professional
identity—as traditional
classroom teachers.

V Y Teacher identity has
cognitive, social, and
professional elements
(Karabay, 2016).
Stakeholders who
believe in voice will
tend to adopt the view
of fellow co-workers
who see the
organization as being
unreceptive (Morrison
& Milliken, 2000).

Provide school
administrators and
teachers PLC time
to develop shared
vision regarding
technology-
infused
instruction, where
concerns, hopes,
successes, and
failures are safe to
voice in teacher-
administrative
circles.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Teachers are provided
minimal technological
tools and funding for
related practice.
V Y Learners cannot learn
something new if they
do not have the
resources (Schein,
2010).
Despite tight budgets,
school districts can
focus resources on
improving instructional
practice and student
learning through
strategic budgeting
(Odden & Picus, 2011).

Provide the district
accountant and
superintendent a
revised budget
proposal that
includes new costs
(line items) for
increasing
resources school
wide that promote
teaching with the
Internet and
blended learning
programs.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 193

Table 11 Continued
Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Teachers lack strong
positive role models of
technology-infused
practice.
V Y Effective leaders help
stakeholders to
communicate and to
work together (Bolman
& Deal, 2013).
New thinking may be
so different from
previous thinking that
learners need to see
what new thinking and
behaviors look like
among others with
whom they identify
(Schein, 2010).
Provide consistent
observation time
for teacher
practitioners to
visit classrooms
where teachers are
modeling blended
learning
instruction, and to
provide sub time
for teachers to
practice learning
new technological
skills with those
teachers.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 194

Cultural models: Influence 1. Teachers are not accountable to peers or supervisors for using
technology-infused instruction. Leaders must have clear vision, goals, and ways to measure
progress (Clark & Estes, 2008). Leaders who are effective demonstrate a “we” mindset
(Drucker, 2004). Data in Chapter Four revealed that teachers did not report their visions or
technology-infused practices to supervisors. The recommendation is to provide district and
school administrators regular PD trainings on the importance of shared vision regarding new
teaching practices, and to modify the teacher evaluation template to include technology-infused
instruction performance goals.
Rueda (2011) asserts that poor leadership is not wholly to blame for organizational gaps,
rather, organizational factors contribute to the lack of meeting performance goals. However, the
needs of individuals and organizations can align (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Top management is
responsible for delivering a compelling positive vision that articulates in behavioral terms what
the “new way of working” will be for stakeholders involved in the change process (Schein,
2010). Therefore, a climate where administration learns, administrative-teacher teams develop
new vision, and where the result is an improved evaluation template that increases teacher
accountability to use technology-infused instruction supports cultural theories that advocate
unified efforts based on leadership choices and the organization at large. Another cultural model
roadblock to this success is deeply rooted in professional identity.
Cultural Models: Influence 2. Teachers have accepted their cultural roles—their
professional identity—as traditional classroom teachers. Teachers who do not believe their
voices matter will not share concerns openly with the organization (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
Stakeholders who develop new ways of thinking or new behavior, may deviate from the group,
and fear of loss of group membership (Schein, 2010). Data in Chapter Four revealed that several
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 195

teachers culturally embraced the traditional teaching model and did not have voice in the
organization. The recommendation is twofold: to change the cultural dynamic at the school site
by providing school administrators and teachers PLC time to develop shared vision regarding
technology-infused instruction, and to provide teachers multiple opportunities to voice concerns,
hopes, successes, and failures (without internal or external risk-taking) in teacher-administrative
circles. This requires cultural shifts.
Rueda (2011) posits that culture is not a static process; rather, culture is a dynamic that is
created and recreated. Leaders may feel that stakeholders are violating important values or
assumptions, and subordinates may try to avoid upsetting the boss (Schein, 2010). Rules that
affect on-the-job relationships interact forcefully with organizational task performance. In work
organizations, rules govern how communicatively open stakeholders will be (Bolman & Deal,
2013). Change processes require adequate provision of knowledge, skills, and motivational
support for everyone (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, creating new cultural experiences and
expectations that involve collegiate relationships, and improved teacher-administrator
interactions through open communication that emphasizes personal voice, supports cultural
theories that magnify the importance of understanding how individuals feel and behave inside
the group. Creating new experiences and cultural expectations provides an opportunity for
construction of more positive professional identity.
Cultural settings: Influence 1. Teachers are provided minimal technological tools and
funding for related practice. One main issue in K12 is that schools are asked to do more with
fewer resources (Rueda, 2011). Even though budgets are tight, schools can restructure their
budgets strategically (Odden & Picus, 2011). Data in Chapter Four revealed that funding was an
enormous barrier to technology-infused instruction. The recommendation is to provide the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 196

district accountant and superintendent a revised budget proposal that includes new costs (line
items) for increasing resources school wide that promote teaching with the Internet and blended
learning programs. Budget decisions are top-down in this organization.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), top management must be involved continually in the
improvement process. Important decisions require the allocation of scarce resources (Bolman &
Deal, 2013). Organizational structures, policies, and practices are features that contribute to
organizational gaps (Rueda, 2011). Consistent with cultural theories that necessitate creative
thinking about organizational financial health, leaders are the ones responsible for developing
innovative strategies that can impact teachers positively by supplying sufficient resources that
support technology-infused instruction that is relevant to practice. The question is, who will be
the go-to role model who spearheads this effort?
Cultural Settings: Influence 2. Teachers lack strong positive role models of technology-
infused practice. Culturally, individuals question what their identities and roles are; stakeholders
need to see demonstration of new ways of thinking and behaving (Schein, 2010). Data in
Chapter Four revealed that peer mentorships were positive in learning. The recommendation is
to provide consistent observation time for teacher practitioners to visit classrooms where teachers
are modeling blended learning instruction, and to provide “sub time” for teachers to practice
learning new technological skills with those teachers. Teachers can mirror one another.
According to Rueda (2011), individual perception impacts stakeholder thinking and behavior.
Individuals are capable of tremendous amounts of learning and adaptation (Bolman & Deal,
2013). Learners need to be able to share with others who experience similar challenges (Schein,
2010). Consistent with cultural theories that magnify the need for social interaction to promote
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 197

positive change in learning groups, teachers are the role models needed to demonstrate
successful implementation of technology-infused instruction, to both colleagues and supervisors.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation
To close gaps in performance at District X, the gap analysis must move beyond solutions and
recommendations in knowledge, motivation, and organization to integrate two additional steps:
implementation and evaluation. The model used for the integrated implementation and
evaluation plan is the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b).
Implementation is where the organizational stakeholders of focus—teachers—have an
opportunity to change what is not working in terms of teaching with the Internet and
participating in a blended learning model at Senior High School X. Plans for changing the
quality of instruction in classrooms and schools are unique to those individual organizations, and
researchers often stop at the findings. That is not the case here. Practitioners must ask five
important questions: if an implementation plan works, how it works, if the plan is worthwhile, if
the plan will work for individual stakeholders, and if the plan is working based on evaluation
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b), the New
World Kirkpatrick Model emphasizes four levels that comprise planning phases, in reverse order
from Level 4 to Level 1: results, behavior, learning, and reaction. Implementation of a training
program begins with results because the organization is looking at “leading indicators”, with the
ultimate results in mind (achievement of the performance goal). Leading indicators are targets
that reveal organizational progress. A solid training program begins with evaluation in mind,
and, in this model, focuses on the four levels to ensure success. This model allows District X to
begin with solutions, identify desired outcomes, emphasize the top priority stakeholder behaviors
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 198

likely to promote positive organizational change, and evaluate progress through assessment of
learning that supports stakeholder initial reactions to the training implementation (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. The New World Kirkpatrick Model. Adopted from Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
District X has a performance goal of increased teacher use of technology in instruction
through PD. The organization’s mission and state mission align: (a) to provide a high-quality
education for all students, and (b) to integrate technology in instruction to meet 21
st
century
educational demands. The stakeholder of focus in this study was a small subset of teachers at
Senior High School X. The on-site performance goal was to increase participation in teaching
with technology and the Internet, preferably, in a blended learning model by doubling the
number of teachers who use the Internet meaningfully in instruction. Teacher shifts in teacher
self-image and in teaching approach supported the organization’s goal of increasing technology-
infused instruction. This dissertation project examined the knowledge and skills, motivational,
and organizational barriers that prevented teachers from changing from a traditional instructional
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 199

model to a blended learning model within the context of professional identity related to PD.
Organizations that strive to compete in a global economy, examine differentiation based on
knowledge and skills, and motivation (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Goals are integral to change
because they provide an organization and its stakeholders a metric for assessing progress (Lewis,
2011). The proposed solutions in KMO, a comprehensive training program, related on-the-job
supports, and an alteration in professional and school cultural expectations, should produce the
desired outcome: an increase in the number of teachers who integrate ICT meaningfully into
their high school classrooms because they see themselves as practitioners of online learning.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 12 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for District X. Pre-
program level of performance involves baseline data. However, evaluation requires the
determination of whether gains made during a program also persisted after program completion
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Meeting internal outcomes leads to the success of external outcomes.
Training and organizational support for increased teacher use of technology-integration,
specifically, the Internet in instruction, can lead to the achievement of the following
organizational results (outcomes) (see Table 12).
Table 12
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. The district and the
high school work together
favorably regarding new
shared vision in
instruction.
The number of on-site visits the
superintendent makes to speak
directly with staff about teaching
with technology and the
Internet, specifically, ICT.
Detailed reporting on number of
site visits, topics, agendas,
content, purpose, and results of
administration-teacher meetings.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 200

Table 12 Continued
2. Administrators use
teacher voice to
communicate suggestions
and decisions to the
district.
The number of questionnaires
distributed to all schools in the
district throughout the school
year, that address teacher
knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs to be able
to teach with the Internet
effectively.
Trimester check-in to rate data
responses, with an emphasis on
secondary schools (middle, high
school, and alternative high
school).
3. Community members
(parents/guardians) expect
their students to engage in
learning that requires
instruction using the
Internet, specifically,
blended learning, to
complete coursework.
The frequency of responses on
parent-teacher evaluations that
describe what students are doing
successfully in classrooms that
is technology or Internet-based.
Trimester check-in to rate data
responses, with emphasis on
secondary schools (middle, high
school, and alternative high
school).
Internal Outcomes
1. Volume: Most
classrooms have
integrated meaningful use
of technology and the
Internet in instruction.
The increase of teachers
teaching with technology and
the Internet daily.
Teacher self-reporting (surveys)
and departmental self-reporting
(surveys) compared with
supervisor confirmation and
evaluative reports.
2. Quality: Teachers
develop and run the PD
trainings that address what
practitioners want and
need to learn.
The number of teacher-directed
PD trainings each year that
address blended learning.
Teacher self-reporting (surveys)
and departmental self-reporting
(surveys) compared with
supervisor confirmation and
evaluative reports.
3. Employee
Engagement: Teachers
collaborate in cross-
curricular teams.
The frequency of team meetings
that center on technology-
infused instruction with a goal
of increased blended learning
instruction.
Teacher self-reporting
(surveys) and departmental self-
reporting (surveys) compared
with supervisor confirmation
and evaluative reports.
4. Employee
Satisfaction: There is
regular, direct, and
coordinated interaction
between administrators
and teachers regarding
practice.
4a. The number of faculty
meetings between administrators
and teachers that emphasize
blended learning instruction.
4a. Time designated for small
group round table discussions,
with departmental self-reporting
(surveys) on progress.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 201

Table 12 Continued
(4. Employee Satisfaction:
There is regular, direct,
and coordinated
interaction between
administrators and
teachers, regarding
practice.)
4b. The frequency and duration
of administrator-teacher contact
for feedback on what is
working/not working.
One-on-one conversations
between teachers and
supervisors to determine teacher
needs and progress.
5. Quality: Sufficient
training in online learning
is accessible throughout
the school year.
3a. The frequency and duration
of PD trainings that are centered
on technology-infused
instruction.
3a. Track training delivery on
school calendar and through PD
trainer agendas.
3b. The number of
questionnaires provided to
teachers on how PD is helping
them teach with the Internet.

3b. Solicit data from
questionnaires.
3c. The increase in mentorships
between teachers who are
successful teaching in blended
learning models, and teachers
who are learning to teach in
blended learning models.
3c. Compare annually who is
mentoring and teaching with the
Internet, how, and why, and
who can assist teachers at
various levels of learning.
6. Cost: Ample
resources are accessible
for teachers and students
to use in a blended
learning model
schoolwide.
4a. The increase in annual
funding and expenditures on a
line-item district budget, for
technological tools, devices, and
programs that support blended
learning.
4a. Conduct yearly cost analysis
of allocations and expenditures
regarding technology.
4b. The number of hardware
tools and devices across
classrooms schoolwide.
4b. Track technology
availability departmentally.
4c. The number of technology
coaches who are on-site each
week who are hired to support
blended learning models.
4c. Track personnel functions in
the technology department.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Teachers are the stakeholders of focus regarding an implementation plan
for increased teaching with technology and the Internet at Senior High School X. Teachers
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 202

orchestrate the delivery of this plan. The first critical behavior is that teachers submit monthly
unit plans that show adequate integration of technology and the Internet, to support continual
progress of blended learning instruction. The second critical behavior is that teachers conduct
departmental meetings that emphasize blended learning instruction. The third critical behavior is
that teachers review the quality of their PD trainings to uncover any deficiencies or
inconsistencies in PD delivery about blended learning instruction. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 13 (see Table 13).
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Teachers submit
monthly unit plans
that show adequate
integration of
technology and the
Internet, to support
continual progress of
blended learning
instruction.
The frequency of
lesson plans that
include blended
learning.

Teachers submit unit
plans, highlighting
blended learning
lessons.

Periodic submission
of unit plans to
administrators.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 203

Table 13 Continued
2. Teachers conduct
departmental
meetings that
emphasize blended
learning instruction.
Frequency of
meetings on the
spotlighted effort—
blended learning
instruction.
2a. Department chairs
assign mentor and
recipient roles to every
department member.
2a. Onset of school
year—roles
assigned.
Thereafter—roles
are revisited for
appropriate pairings
and teacher
progress.
2b. Department chairs
create agendas and
timelines that are
conducive to the new
teaching effort.
2b. Monthly reports
from teachers to
department chairs
about progress.
3. Teachers review the
quality of their PD
trainings to uncover
any deficiencies or
inconsistencies in PD
delivery about
blended learning
instruction.
3a. The number of
planned and extra PD
trainings that arise
based on teacher
wants and needs.

3a. Department chairs
track PD trainings and
their relevance to
various departmental
goals and outcomes.
3a. Monthly reports
from department
chairs to
administrators about
topics and concerns.

3b. The length of
time required to
disseminate essential
training information
to participants (how
quickly teachers
develop new blended
learning skills).
3b. Administrators and
department chairs track
relationship between PD
and individual teacher
progress in departments.
3b. Monthly self-
report (survey) of
teaching successes
to department chairs
and administrators.

Required drivers. What teachers learn in the training needs to be reinforced and applied
through required drivers that support teachers and hold them accountable to the implementation
plan. Required drivers include the following methods: reinforcement, encouragement, reward,
and monitoring. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016a), success of implementation
plans necessitates data collection that is both quantitative and qualitative. Additionally, mission-
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 204

critical programs necessitate a solid plan for monitoring compliance and critical behaviors, and
the support plan must have at least one item from each of the reinforcing, encouraging, and
rewarding categories. Table 14 shows the recommended required drivers that support critical
behaviors of teachers, and support mixed-method data collection that can reveal organizational
progress (see Table 14).
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Reinforcing
PowerPoints (PPTs) that teach
necessary terminology
associated with blended
learning.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Regular PD trainings for
teachers, about blended
learning.
Monthly 3
Graphic organizer that is part
of the professional growth
plan.
Revisit once per trimester 1, 2
Encouraging
Same-subject area training
mentorships.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Peer role modeling in
department meetings.
Weekly 1, 2

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 205

Table 14 Continued
Consistent peer feedback
during PLC and departmental
meetings.
Weekly 1, 2
Practice with technological
forums, and share-out time
during PD.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
PLC time for teacher-
administrator discussions on
shared vision.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Teacher acknowledgement in
departmental and faculty
meetings for best practices.
Monthly 1, 2
Modify the teacher evaluation
to include technology-infused
instruction performance goals
where teaching
accomplishments are
rewarded through
performance pay, district pay
incentives, or “extra personal
days” incentives.
Bi-annually 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Revised professional growth
plan that includes technology-
infused teaching, and is part
of teacher evaluation.
Bi-annually 1, 2, 3
Revised school district
budget.
Annually 1, 2, 3
PLC time for self-reflective
practice to redefine
instructional roles.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Consistent observation time
for classroom visits, and sub
time for teachers to learn from
one another.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 206

Organizational support. Teachers require the support of their direct supervisors and the
organization at large during the implementation process of an integrated plan for positive change
involving technology-infused instruction. Teachers are the central stakeholders responsible for
the implementation plan, training program, and evaluation, but teachers need support from
supervisors to actualize critical behaviors that support desired results. Supervisors include:
teacher colleagues who hold authoritative roles such as department chairs and technology
coaches, principals, and district-level administrators. Based on organization recommendations
(see Table 11), the organizational culture needs to change. This is the foundation for the
flourishing of stakeholder behaviors that support the desired results of the integrated plan.
Supervisors and teachers must collectively create unified vision, see teacher stakeholders as
integral to the change process, magnify teacher voice, and support teachers through funding.
The organization supports teacher critical behaviors in the implementation plan by providing
time to discuss, collaborate, and share. The organization improves the teacher evaluation criteria
and supplies classrooms with enough technology and access to online programs to make blended
learning a daily opportunity for practitioners to consider and seize. Every step of the way, the
key stakeholders (teachers and administrators) must share open communication about wants,
needs, and progress related to blended learning. There can be no personal agendas, hidden
efforts, or closed doors. The integrated plan asks all stakeholders to emphasize the common
good of the school. Application of a collective mindset is necessary for changing organizational
culture. Individual voice matters and group membership is desirable in the training program.
For individuals to really change, and in this case, to augment professional identity to include
“online” and “blended learning” in common knowledge and practice based on intrinsic and
collective value, the training program must spotlight Level 2: Learning.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 207

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Stakeholder learning is imperative in a training program that promotes
effective and positive organizational change. Training activities have a positive impact on
individual and team performance (Arguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Learning involves the
development of knowledge and skills that are declarative (D), procedural (P), and metacognitive
(M) (Krathwohl, 2002). Motivation can involve issues of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000).
Motivation can also be categorized into EVT by underscoring attainment and utility (Eccles,
2009). After teacher-stakeholders complete recommended solutions during a training program
that emphasizes blended learning instruction, these teachers will be able to:
1. Define, use, and teach terminology about online and blended learning instruction, (D)
2. Augment schemas about effective teaching practice related to technology, (D)
3. Apply technological skills procedurally to increase technology-infused practice, (P)
4. Identify beliefs about knowledge and teaching knowledge by building schemas related to
effective practice, (M)
5. Identify and evaluate individually what traditional instructional views and approaches can
be altered to include technology-infused practice, (M)
6. Redefine the term “professional identity” to include technology-infused instruction in
practitioner self-identity, (M)
7. Believe in ability to deliver instruction that includes technological tools or online forums,
(Self-Efficacy)
8. Articulate the value of technology in the classroom, based on self-perceptions and self-
image related to professional identity, (Attainment Value), and
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 208

9. Articulate the value of using technology in the classroom as an innovative enhancement
to traditional instructional approaches. (Utility Value)
Program. The program for this organization must be ongoing if it is to challenge the status
quo and especially, the boring, static professional development trainings that study participants
have described as uneventful, unmotivating, and unhelpful to teaching practice. The program
delivery method is teacher-centered with the goals of more student-centered learning and
administrative support. Teachers change if they believe doing so benefits their students (Cuban,
2013). The learning goals that involve development of skills in declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge, and self-efficacy and expectancy value are learning goals that
practitioners must work toward with fervor. The training program is a multi-faceted, caring, and
open endeavor where harmony prevails between teachers and administrators. Teachers have
voice and control over PD opportunities that promote blended learning. Sharing of best practices
is abundant. These descriptors for the training program mirror solutions and recommendations,
and desired behaviors and results for this organization.
Program essentials. Specifically, teachers must own terminology that they use and share
amongst one another—blended learning cannot be a marginalized effort among science and
literature teachers only, with only a sprinkling of math teacher involvement, or involvement from
other disciplines. Teachers must also have time to reflect—time to process the learning they are
being asked to do in this program. Teachers must also feel able to perform tasks using online
forums and the Internet, and practitioners must see value both for themselves and their students,
regarding the use of the technological tools, devices, and programs. The types of professional
development trainings that would occur cannot be expressed in full in this implementation plan
because teachers are the ones to create them. However, what can be stated is that each
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 209

professional development training in this program would be like a new flower in the garden after
winter frost disappears—something brilliant to captivate, to encourage, and to remember as real,
possible, and meaningful. The PD trainings are not fragmented nor “fly-by-night”. Instead, PD
trainings invite teachers to grow and develop new teacher professional identity. Technology-
infused instruction is part of how teachers see themselves as educators. PD regarding
technology-infused instruction is the focal point of all technology trainings in this program, with
a spotlight on increased blended learning instruction—the organization’s target performance
goal. Teachers know that in these trainings they receive the why, the how, and the can-do
components of learning without the threat of being shut down, rejected, or dismissed by
supervisors or technology coaches.
Program structure. Strategies to promote learning include face-to-face and online trainings.
The adjustment of the annual budget to include more line items for technology might support e-
trainings through Schoology, the LMS of choice for this school district. In both training settings
in this program (face-to-face and virtual), teachers have ample time to practice and to solidify
new skills. When stakeholders perform skills, the test should involve performance of that skill
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). These study participants at Senior High School X echoed
abundantly how much time they needed for (a) learning, and (b) coaching. The training program
magnifies these teacher needs in an organization that is asking for a shift in teaching approach.
In the training program, teachers experience multiple PD opportunities to increase awareness,
knowledge, motivation, and practice of blended learning instruction. Teachers address these
developing skills in their peer role relationships: leader, coach, mentor, and novice.
Administrators support these relationships, and help teachers find answers, share information,
and learn from one another. Teachers perform skills in classrooms and openly report the process
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 210

of acquiring skills in blended learning instruction. The school sets aside time for share-outs that
can occur in faculty meetings, collaborative PLC meetings, and in departmental discussions.
Learning is the focus. Teacher learning occurs in these group settings throughout the ninth-
month traditional calendar school year, not in isolated classrooms, or sporadically.
Components of learning. Stakeholders must develop certain knowledge and skills regarding
technology-infused instruction to be able to teach using technological tools, devices, and
programs, the Internet, online learning forums, or in a blended learning model. Stakeholders
must also develop stronger self-efficacy and must see themselves as practitioners of online
learning, and value online learning to change practice. Evaluation of stakeholder knowledge and
skills development, and stakeholder confidence and values is paramount in a training program
that asks teachers to demonstrate these skills, feelings of ability, and values about their teaching
related to blended learning. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b), evaluation of
training programs improves the program, maximizes transfer of learning to behavior and
subsequent organizational results, and demonstrates the value of training to the organization.
Evaluation activities occur in three phases: planning, execution, and demonstration of value.
Also, the evaluation activities that are most critical to the training program occur during the
execution phase. Table 15 lists the evaluation methods (both formative and summative) and
timing for components of learning that are essential to stakeholder development regarding
technology-infused instruction, during the execution phase (see Table 15).

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 211

Table 15
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks about terminology and
possibility about blended learning, through
discussions, and individual/group activities.
During PD trainings and departmental share-
outs.
Knowledge pre- and post- tests about
terminology and creating a blended learning
model in individual classrooms.
After new information is presented during PD
trainings.
Presentations about the why and the what
regarding blended learning instruction.
After PD trainings.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Pulse-check feedback—I can show you what
I’m learning.
During PD trainings.
Teach back to peer mentors and trainers the
procedural skills they just practiced.
During PD trainings.
Individual and group demonstration on new
procedural skill development.
During PD trainings and in subsequent
departmental and faculty share-outs.
Action planning among individual teachers
to show what procedural skills they will
include in new instructional practice.
After PD trainings, and throughout school
year.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pulse-check—I like what I’m learning. During PD trainings.
Teacher trainers’ observations of teacher
participant statements and actions
demonstrating that they see the benefit of
what they are being asked to do on the job.
During PD trainings.
Discussions of the value of what teachers
are being asked to do on the job.
During PD trainings.
Online survey items using Likert scale, to
evaluate values.
After PD trainings.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 212

Table 15 Continued
Confidence “I can do it on the job.”
Pulse-check—What I’m learning is
something I feel good about.
During PD trainings.
Discussions following practice, that include
direct feedback.
During and after PD trainings.
Online survey items using Likert scale, to
evaluate self-efficacy.
Following each PD training.
Interview with individual teachers new to
blended learning.
After PD trainings and practice with procedural
skill development.
Focus group interview with group of
teachers new to blended learning.
After PD trainings and practice with procedural
skill development.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Pulse-check—What I’m learning is
something I will use now.
During PD trainings.
Discussions following practice, that include
direct feedback.
After PD trainings.
Action planning among individual teachers
to show what steps they will take to include
blended learning.
After PD and during professional growth
meetings.

Level 1: Reaction
The first level of an integrated implementation plan needs to address stakeholder reactions to
the actual program. Reaction involves what stakeholders think and how they feel about the
solution (Rueda, 2011). According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b), reaction is the
simplest level to evaluate, and evaluation involves three components: engagement, relevance,
and customer satisfaction. The program also needs a post-program survey to monitor the most
important elements over time. Clark and Estes (2008) posit that evaluation at the reaction stage
involves evaluation of stakeholder confidence and values about the program. Also, evaluation
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 213

means determining if the program is the cause of measured changes. Reaction of participants is
part of that measurement, and provides baseline measurement on the performance gap. Table 16
lists the methods (both formative and summative) and timing required to determine how
participants are reacting to the learning opportunities that center on innovative professional
development trainings at the school site to increase technology-infused instruction (see Table
16). After components for measurement and timing are established, the next step in the
implementation and evaluation plan is evaluation tools.
Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance in PD trainings, and volunteer
efforts for take-away practice and share-outs.
For each PD training emphasis.
Dedicated observer to watch dynamics of
trainers and trainees.
During PD trainings.
Completion of tasks during the trainings (how
far the trainees get in program development
and in practice activities).
During PD trainings.
Program evaluation in brief online survey
using Likert scale.
After every PD training.
Relevance
Pulse-checks with participants in brief online
survey using Likert scale and in face-to-face Q
and A—This program is relevant to my job.
During every PD training.

Program evaluation in brief online survey
using Likert scale.
Monthly.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse-checks with participants in brief online
Likert surveys and in face-to-face Q and A—I
really find the program to be helpful.
During every PD training.
Program evaluation in brief online survey
using Likert scale.
After every PD training.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 214

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Program participants complete an
evaluation tool survey and answer subsequent interview and focus group questions immediately
following program implementation. The assessment tools support a Blended Evaluation®
approach to evaluation, which means that the assessment addresses multiple levels of training
evaluation and their respective categories in a survey or questionnaire (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016b). In the assessment tool for this training program, confidence was spotlighted
in Level 2 as a category to be measured also through interview and focus group. This is the only
category that has interview and focus group questions in the evaluation tool. Motivation is a
strong indicator of whether participants will continue a program. The evaluation tool emphasizes
self-efficacy in an inquiry about program effectiveness. Appendix G lists the questions in the
evaluation tool for Level 2 Learning and Level 1 Reaction using a Blended Evaluation®
approach (see Appendix G).
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. After program completion,
stakeholder participants need to demonstrate program effectiveness over the long haul. Short-
term gains are important, but a training program that sustains its worth following its
implementation obviously demonstrates greater success. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016b), part of this type of assessment includes surveying participants in a final
stage of data collection, by addressing all four levels of training evaluation: results, behavior,
learning, and reaction.
The quicker the data collection in all data collection stages, the better. E-learning, informal
learning, and mobile learning can be used for evaluation in the form of emails, discussion boards,
tests, standards-based reporting, data on participant use of features in the program, use of e-
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 215

sources for program implementation, and task completion. Additionally, most of Level 2
Learning should be assessed during program implementation anyway (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016b). However, in delayed evaluation, a straightforward set of survey questions
and open-ended questions is sufficient and ideal for determining overall program success. The
survey needs to ask the right questions, be brief, and interpretable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016b; Yates, 2017). Appendix H lists the questions in a delayed evaluation tool for all four
levels of training evaluation, with fewer questions offered in Level 2 Learning (see Appendix H).
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis and reporting is the final stage of the integrated plan for organizational success
related to teaching in a blended learning model at Senior High School X. This stage occurs after
administration of the immediate and delayed evaluation tools. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016b), during the reporting period, the program evaluator must ask three essential
questions that address all four levels (reaction, learning, behavior, results) of the program
evaluation. These three questions center on: whether the level of evaluation met expectations,
why it did not, or why it did. The program evaluator must also consider the stakeholders who
will receive the data reports. Reports should be timely so there is room to improve before a final
evaluation of the training program occurs. The key stakeholders who receive regular data reports
are administrators and teachers.
Data analysis occurs throughout the training program implementation process, but becomes
more granular during scheduled reporting periods (once per trimester in the school year).
Teachers, administrators, and district level supervisors at District X need to know how much
progress teachers are making in a training program, with the support of their superiors. The
program evaluator delves into the why behind (a) meeting, or (b) not meeting some of the
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 216

training program expectations. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016b), if categories
exist in a level of evaluation where outcomes were met, then asking why is important so that the
organization can celebrate how those outcomes were achieved. The organization might
propagate this achievement by utilizing the Success Case Method (SCM) that highlights what
made the training program work. If there are categories where outcomes were not met, which is
likely, emphasizing what needs to improve is crucial in the latter two levels of evaluation:
behavior and results.
How will this process unfold at District X? First, every stakeholder is busy trying to perform
well on the job. Asking teachers to take more time to learn a new teaching approach is a
challenging request in the first place. The training program had to find its way into the lives of
these practitioners during times of the day that stakeholders would already have been obligated:
PLC and PD time, and obviously, classroom teaching time (to practice skill development and
implementation of a blended learning model). Second, administrators share the same concerns
about time. School site administrators are often pinned to their offices for various reasons.
District level supervisors are more aloof than other stakeholders because they are not in the day-
to-day grind of teaching high school students. Therefore, considering how and when the most
productive discussions about progress could arise would have to be opportune and purposeful.
Likely, these discussions are best during regular scheduled meeting times—prearranged at the
onset of the school year.
Data analysis and reporting for both quantitative and qualitative components of the immediate
and delayed evaluation tools in all four levels of evaluation is structured and systematic.
Quantitative data analysis involves descriptive statistics, and qualitative data analysis involves
thematic coding to discover meaning that reflects what teachers are thinking, feeling, and doing
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 217

about training in blended learning at the school site (Creswell, 2014). The program evaluator
works closely with participants, including administrators, to share this data, by visiting
departments and asking questions that pertain to individual subject areas. The goal is to create
an environment where participants interact on a human level, where humanness is part of
training and evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Throughout the school year, these
share-out discussions about training success are paramount because they keep stakeholders
focused on their own progress in all four levels of evaluation. Data from the delayed evaluation
tools help stakeholders understand where the organization needs to continue to go. Data can also
be used during teacher evaluation meetings with principals to determine individual progress in
meeting professional growth plan goals related to technology-infused instruction.
A few essential components comprise good reporting of data at this school site: timing,
openness, individualization, and meaning. If those components are not realized for teachers,
they likely will not care about what is being shared with them. Therefore, the program evaluator
wants to find easy ways of communicating data findings. Holding regular meetings or
“touchpoints” is advantageous because stakeholders can share observations and discuss what is
not working (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). Communicating successes over email is also
beneficial. Teachers and administrators are on email daily. A quick scan of a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet or a report of successes in a conceptual framework or list can boost teacher morale
about the project. Keeping the stakeholders informed so the project effort is more immediate
instead of distant, is necessary. Also, if there are findings that reveal teachers need more training
or opportunities to learn, that teachers are not confident and/or committed, or behaviors are
dipping into the “same old ways” before the training began, individualizing instruction is ideal.
Just as a strong, dedicated teacher would pull a struggling student aside, the program needs to
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 218

elicit those needs from the participating stakeholders who are having difficulties at various levels
of evaluation, most notably, learning, behavior, and/or results.
At the final reporting stage, the program evaluator indicates strengths first. Stakeholders want
to hear what they have done well, and want to see their efforts reflected on paper.
Congratulating the key stakeholders for their efforts and accomplishments makes sense, followed
by a presentation on areas that require continued growth. The Final Report is brief but contains
the salient features of the findings, both quantitative and qualitative (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016b). The numbers and words are tools for identifying and explaining successes and areas in
which the organization still needs to improve. A dull PowerPoint (PPT) is not ideal. Interactive
sharing and reporting garners more engagement among a tired faculty at the end of a school year.
The program evaluator provides teachers and on-site administrators a share-out visual, and a
handout that is easy to read and follow. The program evaluator considers a more formal report
(four to five pages) for the superintendent’s records. Figure 4 is a CF that represents the data
analysis process and reporting for this training program (see Figure 4).
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 219

Figure 4. Data Analysis and Reporting for the Training Program. Adapted from Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016b).
To revisit the data analysis process, reporting to stakeholders occurs in stages. Administrators
and teachers receive “snapshots” of progress and delayed results to keep stakeholders on their
toes about their performance using a blended learning model. Key stakeholders would not want
to read several pages of information. The final report is a lengthier presentation to district
leadership. The program evaluator determines whether results are achieved by assessing
progress in all four levels of evaluation. Within this process, the program evaluator compares
expected results (ideal outcomes) to actual results (organizational performance based on training
program effectiveness). This stage of the integrated implementation plan in “real time” is
beyond the scope of this dissertation project because data in an integrated implementation plan
was not actually collected at Senior High School X.
22
Thus, the following information is a set of

22
The researcher conducted a qualitative study only. The implementation plan was part of solutions and
recommendations. No research was actually conducted in this stage of the project.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 220

projected or anticipated results, based on the goal of closing the performance gap in teacher use
of technology-infused instruction.
To understand the full implementation of this plan, the program evaluator revisits the last two
levels of evaluation: behavior and results. Table 12 listed external outcomes that support
results: the district and school site have shared vision and two-way communication, teacher
voice is magnified, and community members expect students to engage in blended learning
classrooms. Table 12 also listed internal outcomes that support results: classrooms have
integrated meaningful use of technology and the Internet, teachers develop and run the PD
trainings, teachers collaborate across departments, administrators and teachers have direct and
coordinated interactions, and teachers have sufficient training opportunities and ample resources
throughout the school year. Table 13 listed critical behaviors that would show stakeholder
change based on effective program implementation: the submission of monthly unit plans that
reflect blended learning, regular discussion of blended learning in department meetings, and
teacher PD training review of quality delivery. Required drivers and Level 2 Learning supported
behavior and results (revisit Table 14 and Table 15). Figure 5 shows stakeholder performance in
teaching with a blended learning model based on the expectations for success and a realistic
likelihood of achieving desired behaviors to some degree. Figure 5 is a dashboard that shows
administrators and teachers a snapshot of their progress the first trimester of instruction by
focusing on the three critical behaviors that can support results. This figure shows a realistic
progression and may be slightly hopeful or presumptuous. Nevertheless, similar graphs are
communicated to stakeholders throughout the school year. The program evaluator chooses to
identify training achievement as expected results (ER), and teacher progress as projected actual
performance (PAP). If the researcher of this dissertation project had completed this training
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 221

program at the school site, the word “projected” would be omitted from the graph, to reflect
actual data.
Figure 5. Dashboard Data Report on Projected Actual Performance in Critical Behaviors.

Summary
Chapter Five provided solutions, recommendations, and an integrated plan for organizational
success regarding teaching in a blended learning model. Chapter Five emphasized two main
frameworks for this process: gap analysis and the New World Kirkpatrick Model for training
evaluation. Solutions and recommendations directly addressed stakeholder assumed influences
in KMO, that had been the emphasis of methodology for this study, supported by relevant
learning and organizational theories. To close performance gaps at District X, developing an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan was necessary once solutions and
recommendations were established. In this plan, key stakeholders participate in a training
program that includes four levels of training evaluation at various stages. Following evaluation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3
Dashboard Data Report
End of First Trimester (November)
ER PAP
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 222

of the program, the program evaluator ascertains additional evidence about program success
through detailed data analysis and reporting. One goal is that District X is strong in the top two
levels of evaluation: behavior and results. These two levels are supported by learning, which is
assessed throughout the program. Another goal is that positive results will last. To close gaps,
both teachers and on-site administrators work closely together to make blended learning a
meaningful and desirable reality for multiple practitioners at the high school. Every stakeholder
involved has a voice, and cares to progress for the good of the organization and student learning.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Approach
The approach for this study was strong. The conceptual framework was a gap analysis (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Investigating gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers (KMO)
strengthened the process of inquiry, data collection, data analysis, and reporting. The gap
analysis allowed the researcher to look at the three top areas of stakeholder performance that
impacted achievement of the district level organizational performance goal. That goal was to
increase teacher use of the Internet in instruction at Senior High School X and within the district
at large. The gap analysis was an appropriate approach for this research study because it was a
thorough investigation into teacher use of the Internet—the why, the how, and the what
regarding teacher knowledge, beliefs, values, and external barriers that influenced teacher
decisions about instructional models and pedagogical design in their individual classrooms.
Delving into metacognition allowed the researcher to explore the role of teacher professional
identity in gaps that affected goal achievement. Findings were stakeholder-specific and delved
deeply into the intricacies of the experiences these seven teachers had at their school site related
to technology-infused instruction. Findings supported solutions and recommendations that came
full circle to the essential focus of inquiry: how to close gaps in performance. The gap analysis
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 223

transitioned nicely and effectively to development of a realistic integrated plan for organizational
improvement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016b). The gap analysis was solid, but it was
incomplete.
One weakness of the approach was that the gap analysis in this study addressed only teachers.
The dissertation focus was on one stakeholder group, but other key stakeholders reasonably
impacted teacher decision-making: administrators, parents, and students. The research approach
did not include the views nor experiences of those stakeholders, except through teacher
perspectives. A complete gap analysis would include all key stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Lewis (2011) also explains that communication among stakeholders is at the heart of change
processes in organizations. Investigating assumed influences in KMO among administrators,
parents, and students would have presented a more complete picture of the gaps in KMO
associated with reduced teacher inclination to use ICT in instruction at District X. Community is
part of culture, but was not an emphasis of this dissertation study. A thorough gap analysis at
Senior High School would have also investigated how assumed influences in KMO among these
additional stakeholders informed teacher assumed influences in KMO. That effort was beyond
the scope of this project.
Future Research
The findings of this research project revealed that change was possible at Senior High School
X. Organizational barriers existed, but District X could set new goals, and implement an
integrated plan to achieve those goals. Data in this study validated all stakeholder assumed
influences in KMO. District X needed to consider associated findings to determine the best plan
of action to close gaps in performance related to technology-infused instruction. Key district
stakeholders involved in a large-scale integrated plan would be administrators and teachers.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 224

Suggestions for future research include actual implementation of an integrated plan to gather
and analyze real data, and to progress toward achievement of desired results and outcomes.
Additional research at Senior High School X would include a broader scope of inquiry and a
larger sample population, broadened to include community. The organization would need to hire
a third party to conduct research that could inform organizational goal progression and
relationship to community and cultural expectations. Most importantly, as evidenced in the
findings of this project, District X would want to emphasize, not diminish innovative PD
trainings and teaching practice. Senior High School X could be a frontrunner for change
regarding digital learning in K12. District X would not be able to conquer the dominion of the
state nor federal government mandates, restrictions, or limitations in terms of expectations,
accountability, and resources. However, District X could find ways within its own parameters to
more clearly define PD, increase learning, emphasize teacher learning, and challenge the status
quo. Teachers in this study revealed that there was a willingness to learn. District X would need
to approach PD as a viable resource for organizational change and improvement. Innovative
practice and the sharing of that practice would be essential to that process.
Research could occur in various ways. Research might address investigation into yearly
progress in meeting the organizational performance goal of increased use of technology in
instruction. Research might also address how organizational culture has either changed or
remained the same. Kezar (2001) presents multiple change models in knowledge, social-
cognition, and culture. District X would likely use a social-cognitive approach to change, as
opposed to a dialectal. Integrating the perspectives, perceptions, and interpretations of all
stakeholders, under the assumption that leaders can shape the change process, would be ideal.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 225

Teacher voice would be an imperative construct to include in a CF that describes the new
goals and efforts related to technology-infused instruction at District X. To empower
stakeholders, engaging them through solicitation of feedback, upward communication, positive
climate, and voice would be essential to the change effort (Lewis, 2011). Stakeholders who
create a mission and vision are most likely to embrace those efforts. Teacher voice is essential to
innovative change in a school (Couros, 2015). Teachers would have to be the central focus of a
change effort that emphasizes instructional, pedagogical, and metacognitive shifts. For teachers
to form new identity, they must have full liberty in the decision-making process—what happens
to them, what happens in their classrooms, and developments within the new organizational
direction. Research during an integrated plan for positive change that will last, would investigate
the progress of that new vision and process.
Conclusion
When the researcher began this study, she was cautioned that metaphors had no place in
academic writing. That was false. Metaphors do have a place in all facets of the living
experience. The story teachers told at Senior High School X proves that symbolic thinking is not
only a way to cope with hardship, but a way that educators envision possibility. The researcher
is a teacher. When teachers decide they want to change, they will. They no longer will see the
field and their classroom as a predictable landscape, but rather, as a blank canvas on which they
can create newness. Teachers can improve the quality of their own lives and the education of
their students by creating a space where innovative strategies flourish. Teachers will disrupt
identity. Disconnect no longer will be a wolf in a dark wood of fragmentation and frustration.
Instead of diminishing the quality of teaching and learning, teachers will seek light, secure trust,
and believe that change is possible, no matter what obstacles the past presented. Their creativity
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 226

and passions will be turned on, and they will walk that line. When teachers are supported in
ALL ways, teachers can challenge history—they can change the imagined to reality.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 227

References
Aflalo, E. (2014). The invisible barrier to integrating computer technology in education.
Journal of Education and Learning, 3(2)120-134.
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917–931.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Alderton, E., Brunsell, E., & Bariexca, D. (2011, September). The end of isolation. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 354.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. [Report]. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from
http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf
American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK–12 teaching and learning. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com /reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 228

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.) Great minds in management (pp.9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bang, E., & Luft, J. A. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the classroom
during their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 188-126.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P.C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107-128.
Blackboard. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., & Eide, E. R. (2010). Chapter 1: Theoretical concepts in the
economics of education. In D. J. Brewer & P. J. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of education
(pp. 3-8). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2009). Exploring teachers’ beliefs about teaching knowledge:
Where does it come from? Does it change? The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4),
367-407.
Canvas. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.canvaslms.com/higher-education/
Capraro, R. M., & Han, S. (2014). STEM: The education frontier to meet 21
st
century
challenges. Middle Grades Research Journal 9(3), xv-xviii.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 229

Catmull, E., with Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand
in the way of true inspiration. New York: Random House.
Claesgens, J., Rubino-Hare, L., Bloom, N., Fredrickson, K., Henderson-Dahms, C., Menasco, J.,
& Sample, J. (2013). Professional development integrating technology: Does delivery format
matter? Science Educator, 22(1), 10-18.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clark, R. E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in highly
complex learning environments. In J. Elen & R. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in
learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 27–43). Oxford, Great Britain: Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An
exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. European Association for
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 218-232. doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000152
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 65-86). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.
Couros, G. (2015). The innovator’s mindset: Empower learning, unleash talent, and lead a
culture of creativity. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting, Inc.
Coward, F. L., Matteson, S. M., & Hamman, D. (2012). A case study of teacher identity
development in middle level student teachers. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(4), 31-42.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 230

Cox, J. (2013). Tenured teachers & technology integration in the classroom. Contemporary
Issues in Education Research, 6(2), 209-217.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in
American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Davis, N., Eickelmann, B., & Zaka, P. (2013). Restructuring of educational systems in the
digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29,
438-450.
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load:
Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234.
Delgado, A. J., Wardlow, L., McKnight, K., O’Malley, K. (2015). Educational technology: A
review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in K-12 classrooms.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 39-416.
Denning, S. (2011). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and
discipline of business narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (2008). 1.4 The need for a philosophy of education. In M. Cochran-Smith et al.
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing
contexts (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 96-101). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dobler, E. (2015, March). eTextbooks: A personalized learning experience or a digital
distraction? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(6), 482-491. doi: 10.1002/jaal.391

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 231

Drucker, P. F. (2004, June). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review,
82(6), 25-33.
Dufour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2011). Innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills of
disruptive innovators. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eccles, J. (2005). Chapter 7: Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-
related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 105-121). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Fajardo Castañeda, J. A. (2014). Learning to teach and professional identity: Images of personal
and professional recognition. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development,
16(2), 49-65.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). 38 Teacher learning: How do teachers learn to teach? In M.
Cochran-Smith et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring
questions in changing contexts (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 697-705). New York, NY: Routledge.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Florian, T. P., & Zimmerman, J. P. (2015, March). Understanding by design, Moodle, and
blended learning: A secondary school study. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 11(1), 120-128.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 232

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45-56.
Geer, R., & Sweeney, T.-A. (2012). Students’ voices about learning with technology. Journal
of Social Sciences, 8(2), 294-303.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gray, D. (2013). Barriers to online postsecondary education crumble: Enrollment in traditional
face-to-face courses declines as enrollment in online courses increases. Contemporary Issues
in Education Research (Online) 6(3), 345.
Greenhow, C., Walker, J. D., & Kim, S. (2009). Millennial learners and net-savvy teens?
Examining Internet use among low-income students. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 26(2), 63-68.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development 15(2), 103-120.
Harding, J. (2013). Chapter 5: Using codes to analyze an illustrative issue. Qualitative data
analysis from start to finish (pp. 81-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
He, Y. (2014, June). Universal design for learning in an online teacher education course:
Enhancing learners’ confidence to teach online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 10(2), 283-298.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 233

Herold, B. (2015, June). Why Ed Tech is not transforming how teachers teach. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/06/11/why-ed-tech-is-not-
transforming-how.html
Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21
st
century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum?
Prospects, 44, 559-574. doi: 10.1007/s11125-014-9323-0
Hora, M. T., & Holden, J. (2013). Exploring the role of instructional technology in course
planning and classroom teaching: Implications for pedagogical reform. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 68-92. doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9068-4
Houston, W. R. (2008). 22 Settings are more than sites. In M. Cochran-Smith et al. (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts
(3
rd
ed.) (pp. 388-393). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices, and barriers about technology integration:
A case study. TechTrend, 60, 30-34. doi: 10.1007/s11528-015-0014-3
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1-16.
doi: 10.1037/a0019506
Hutchinson, A. C., & Colwell, J. (2014). The potential of digital technologies to support literacy
instruction relevant to the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 58(2), 147-158. doi: 10.1002/jaal.335
Ifanti, A. A., & Fotopoulou, V. S. (2010). Undergraduate students’ and teachers’ perceptions of
professional development and identity formation: A case study in Greece. KEDI Journal of
Educational Policy, 7(1), 157-174.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 234

Jewett, P., & MacPhee, D. (2012). Adding collaborative peer coaching to our teaching identities.
The Reading Teacher 66(2), 105-110. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01089
Johnson, B. (1998). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems.
Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L.B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Jones, W. M., & Dexter, S. (2014). How teachers learn: the roles of formal, informal, and
independent learning. Education Tech Research Development, 62, 367-384.
Karabay, A. (2016). An investigation of prospective teachers’ views regarding teacher identity
via metaphors. Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 65, 1-18.
Kemp, A. T., Preston, J., Page, C. S., Harper, R., Dillard, B., Flynn, J., & Yamaguchi, M. (2014).
Technology and teaching: A conversation among faculty regarding the pros and cons of
technology. The Qualitative Report, 19(6), 1-23.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21
st
century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 1-
147.
Khachatryan, Edit (2015). Feedback on teaching from observations of teaching: What do
administrators say and what do teachers think about it? NASSP Bulletin, 99(2), 164-188. doi:
10.1177/0192636515583716
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016a). Evaluation blunders and missteps to avoid.
Training and Development, November, 36–40.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016b). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 235

Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2009a). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas. F. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from
complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human
Behavior 25(2), 306-314. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2), 312–319.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-
analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–611.
Learnnovators (2016, April). 7 characteristics of a digital mindset. Retrieved from
http://www.elearninglearning.com/definition/digital/?open-article-id=4929044&article-
title=7-characteristics-of-a-digital-mindset&blog-domain=learnnovators.com&blog-
title=learnnovators
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Li, L., Worch, E., Zhou, Y., & Aguiton, R. (2015). How and why digital generation teachers use
technology in the classroom: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1-9.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 236

Lowery-Moore, H., Latimer, R. M., & Villate, V. M. (2016). The essence of teacher leadership:
A phenomenological inquiry of professional growth. International Journal of Teacher
Leadership, 7(1), 1-16.
Margulieux, L. E., Bujak, K. R., McCracken, W. M., & Majerich, D. M. (2014, January).
Hybrid, blended, flipped, and inverted: Defining terms in a two-dimensional taxonomy.
Paper accepted to the 12
th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu,
HI, January 5-9.
Martin, F., & Carr, M. L. (2015). An exploratory study on K-12 teachers’ use of technology and
multimedia in the classroom. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 7-14.
Matsui, B. I. (1997). Action mapping: A planning tool for change. PREL.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K, & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. leadership. School Administrator, 58(10),
32–34.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Morrell, E. (2012). 21st ‐century literacies, critical media pedagogies, and language arts. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 300-302.
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 237

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4), 706–725.
Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015, July). ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional
development program on effective integration of educational technology. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 16-28.
Obenchain, K. M., Balkute, A., Vaughn, E., & White, S. (2016). High school teachers’
identities: constructing civic selves. The High School Journal 99 (3), 252-278.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2011, September). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are
tight. Kappan, 42-48.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park: SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Perrotta, C. (2012). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital
technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(2), 314-327. doi. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01304.x
Pilgrim, J., & Martinez, E. (2015). Literacy terminology and technology integration for 21
st

century teaching: A survey of educators. Journal of Reading Education, 40(3), 9-16.
Pinho, A. S., & Andrade, A. I. (2015). Redefining professional identity: The voice of a
language teacher in a context of collaborative learning. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(1), 21-40.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 238

Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and
fluency. Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74.
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. Eds. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Puttick, G., Drayton, B., & Karp, J. (2015). Digital curriculum in the classroom: Authority,
control, and teacher role. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,
10(6), 11-20.
Richardson, J. C., & Alsup, J. (2015, February). From the classroom to the keyboard: How
seven teachers created their online teacher identities. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 142-167.
Roberts, K., Shedd, M., & Norman, R. (2012). The common core standards on technology: A
*SHIFT* in focus for states. The NERA Journal, 48(1), 56-65.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development
Review, 8(1), 120-130.
Rodgers, C. R., & Scott, K. H. (2008). 40 The development of the personal self and professional
identity in learning to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 732-755). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Rogers, G. (2011). Learning-to-learn and learning-to-teach: The impact of disciplinary subject
study on student-teachers’ professional identity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(2), 249-
268.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 239

Rosaen, C., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). 39 The metaphors by which we teach: Experience,
metaphor, and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith et al. (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3
rd
ed.) (pp.
706-731). New York, NY: Routledge.
Roux, A. L. (2011, December). The interface between identity and change: How in-service
teachers use discursive strategies to cope with educational change. Education as Change,
15(2), 303-316.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ruggerio, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice
and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research,
14, 161-178.
Sant, P., & Catania, G. (2014). The growing web of influence of social networking sites on
interpersonal relationships. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7(5), 719-734.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4
rd
ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schmidt, K., Maier, J., & Nückles, M. (2012). Writing about the personal utility of learning
contents in a learning journal improves learning motivation and comprehension. Education
Research International, 1-10.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2009). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/information_processing_theory_
education.com.pdf?mod_version.c
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 240

Sparks, S. D. (2015, April 13). Blended learning research yields limited results. Education
Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/04/15/blended-learning-research-yields-limited-
results.html
Stanhope, D. S., & Corn, J. O. (2014). Acquiring teacher commitment to 1:1 initiatives: The
role of the technology facilitator. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3),
Spring, 252-276.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1–7). Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Sagy, & Kali, Y. (2015). A fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers’
designing of technology-enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 283-307. doi:
10.1007/s11251-014-9342-5
Sykes, G. (2008). 9.3 Teacher education and the predicament of reform. In M. Cochran-Smith
et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing
contexts (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 1294-1309). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tamir, M., Bigman, Y. E., Rhodes, E., Salerno, J., & Schreier, J. (2015). An expectancy-value
model of emotion regulation: Implications for motivation, emotional experience, and
decision-making. Emotion, 15(1), 90-103.
United States Department of Commerce. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.commerce.gov/
United States Department of Commerce. (2016). Retrieved from
https://digitalliteracy.gov/about
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 241

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003).
Internet access in public schools and classrooms 1994-2002 (NCES 2004-011). Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004011.pdf
United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009).
Teachers’ use of educational technology in U. S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in
online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2014).
Enrollment in distance education courses, by state: Fall 2012 (NCES 2014-023). Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
United States Department of Education. (2015). Elementary and secondary education act.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea
United States Department of Education. (2016a). College-and Career-Ready Standards.
Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/k-12reforms/standards
United States Department of Education. (2016b). National educational technology plan.
Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/netp/
United States Department of Education. (2016c). Use of technology in teaching and learning.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and-learning
Van Acker, F., van Buren, H., Kreijns, K., & Vermuelen, M. (2013). Why teachers use digital
learning materials: The role of self-efficacy, subjective norm and attitude. Education and
Information Technologies, 18(3), 495-514. doi: 10.1007/s10639-011-9181-9
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 242

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Thomas Shanks, S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (2011). Thinking ethically: A
framework for moral decision making. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, T. (2014). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the
new survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Walton-Radford, A. & Weko, T. (2011, October). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate
enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs. U. S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012154.pdf
Westheimer, J. (2008). 41 Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the shared
enterprise of education. In M. Cochran-Smith et al. (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts (3
rd
ed.) (pp.
756-783). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wordsworth, W. (1798). Lines composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey. In M. H. Abrams
(Ed.), The Norton anthology of English literature (Fifth ed., Vol. 2) (pp. 152). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Yanez, C., Okada, A., & Palau, R. (2015). New learning scenarios for the 21
st
century related to
education, culture, and technology. RUSC Universities and Knowledge Society Journal,
12(2), 87-102.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 243

Yates, K. (2017). 11.3 Data collection revisited: Applying data collection method and tools to
your integrated plan [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=121954

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 244

APPENDIX A
Email to Stakeholders

March 14, 2017

Dear faculty,

I hope you are having a wonderful day so far.

As you may know, I'm in a doctorate program, learning about
leadership and organization in education. As part of my
requirements, I am doing a study here at the high school. I
need seven teachers to volunteer to be a part of my study that
takes a look at our use of technology in classroom teaching. I
need teachers from ALL disciplines and subject areas, including
but certainly not limited to the core subjects. I would like to
include your voices and thoughts from a variety of classroom
teaching experiences. Ideally, I would like to have seven
teachers from seven different subject areas and across sectors
(regular ed/special ed). =)

If you would like to help me:

1. Please email me before we head to spring break
2. Please know your name/identity will not be part of the study
3. You will be compensated up to $40 (gift card to local
restaurant/retailer)
4. We will start after spring break

I'm hoping to have volunteers before this Friday!

I really appreciate your consideration. I look forward to
hearing back! I'm excited about this project.

Thanks so much,

Shea =)

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 245

APPENDIX B
IRB Informed Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12: THE IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ON PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY TO INCREASE TEACHER INCLINATION TO USE
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to gain insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers that impact teacher stakeholders related to information and communications technology
(ICT) use in the classroom. The study will be hinged on a one-time professional development
training, to determine how professional development impacts or influences teacher professional
identity, and inclination to use ICT, specifically, blended learning models in the classroom. The
study is qualitative, and will be a five-part process: survey, innovation, interviews, focus group,
and observation. The benefits of this study include learning what influences teachers in the area
of technology-infused instruction, and being able to determine the best approach to professional
development involving technology integration in classroom instruction.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to this study, you will respond to short answer survey questions that will take
approximately 60 minutes to complete. Following, you will participate in a one-time
professional development training that will occur before school on a Wednesday during PLC
time. After the training, you will participate in two interviews: a one-on-one interview with the
researcher, and a focus group. Each interview will last approximately 30 minutes. The
interviews will be audio-recorded, not videotaped. You may decline to be audio-recorded, of
you choose. The principal investigator will also observe you teaching all or part of a class
period, which will require your permission, but no interaction with the investigator.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 246

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not be paid for your participation in the study. You will be compensated for your
volunteered time. Compensation will be a gift card to a local retailer or restaurant.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Your alternative to participation is not to participate. Your relationship to your employer will
not be affected if you choose not to participate in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Your responses to the survey questions, interview questions, and focus group questions will be
kept confidential. You will be assigned a pseudonym for the study. Any identifiable information
obtained in connection to the study will be kept confidential. Your interview and focus question
responses will be audio-recorded. You have the right to review or edit the audio-recordings and/or
transcripts. The principal investigator and transcribers will have access to the audio-recordings
and transcriptions. The audio-recordings will be kept indefinitely, but confidentiality will be
maintained. The investigator will secure and store the audio-recordings and transcriptions, and
these recordings and transcriptions will not be released to any other party for any reason.

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Shea-Alison Thompson
sheaalit@usc.edu
208 390 3972

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 247

APPENDIX C
Stage One Survey Protocol
Participant ID #:______________
Please type your responses to the questions below. Please submit your written responses (this
completed survey) as an attachment in an email to the researcher. The goal of this survey is to
learn what you know and believe about teaching, and teaching with technology.
Part I
1. How do you define technology at your school site?
2. What is information and communications technology (ICT)?
3. In your opinion, how could a high school teacher connect face-to-face teaching to the
Internet?
4. Tell me to what degree online and blended learning models are being used at your school.
5. Describe the attributes of a good teacher.
6. In your opinion, what does “teaching knowledge” mean?
7. Explain the instructional model you use in your classroom practice.
8. To what extent have your professional development trainings addressed teaching with the
Internet?
9. To benefit teachers, what should professional development training related to technology
include?
10. To what degree has professional development affected your use of technology and/or the
Internet in the classroom?

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 248

Part II
1. Why did you become an educator?
2. To what degree does using the Internet for teaching appeal to you?
3. To what degree do you believe that teachers need to use online and/or blended learning in
high school instruction?
4. Describe how confident you feel about teaching with the Internet at your school site.
5. Describe how confident you feel about putting one of your own classes into a blended
learning model.
6. In your opinion, how relevant to your teaching are the technological tools, devices, and/or
programs that the district provides?
Part III
1. How is teaching with technology and/or the Internet evaluated by supervisors at your
school site?
2. Who is responsible for helping teachers use technology instructionally?
3. In your opinion, who should be responsible for helping teachers learn how to use new
technology in classroom instruction?
4. How would you describe your colleagues’ views about teaching with technology and/or
the Internet at your school site?
5. To what degree do you think teaching practice will change at your school site, because of
technology, specifically online or blended learning?
6. What resources do teachers need to be successful teaching with technology and/or the
Internet?
7. How would you describe school support in this area?
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 249

APPENDIX D
Stage Two PD Training Protocol
Stage Two: Innovation Professional Development (PD) Training
The innovation is a one-time professional development (PD) training at the school site (most
likely in a computer lab) that involves the five original teacher participants from stage one
(survey), and two new teacher participants. The researcher-presenter will hold a one-hour
interactive presentation on online and blended learning. The approach will be innovative
because teachers will receive information in a new way—by logging into a learning management
system (LMS) and by thinking about blended learning immediately. The training will begin with
brainstorming. The researcher-presenter will have three large poster-sized post-it pages on the
whiteboard. Participants will then write ideas on the pages. Each page will be labeled as a type
of classroom setting: “f2f,” “online,” and “blended.” Participants will be instructed to walk
around the room, and use markers to post their ideas to each page. The verbal question will be:
What do you know about each of these classrooms? Participants will write single words and
phrases to describe each setting. This entire activity will take approximately 10 minutes.
Following the brainstorming, each teacher will have three cards with his or her name on each
one. The verbal question will be: Which classroom setting do you fit into the most? Teachers
will post their name cards on the appropriate post-its. Participants will post their names to any
(or all) of the classroom settings that they believe apply to their teaching practice.
The researcher-presenter will then present the purpose of the presentation—to make blended
learning a reality in the classroom. The researcher-presenter will share briefly what a blended
learning model is, but will also state that in education, definitions for blended learning vary. The
researcher will ask participants what they know about Schoology, a free LMS that is already
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 250

being used for classroom instruction by various teachers at the high school. Some teachers in the
PD training may be familiar with Schoology, and may be using it; and some teachers may not
know anything about the opportunity of using Schoology, and some may want to increase how
they are using the LMS for instruction. The researcher-presenter will have teachers log in or
create a log-in to the Schoology website. Teacher participants will be responsible for creating a
log-in and for navigating the website to determine which features could be used for classroom
instruction such as testing/assessment or discussion threads. Teachers who are familiar with the
website will be asked how they could add more to their instruction to create a blended learning
model in their classrooms. After teacher participants have had enough time to peruse the
website, they will form two small groups.
In this stage of the training, each small group will discuss how to transfer part of a current
course online. This course could come from any of the subject areas reflected by the
participants. Each small group will determine what the class is (English 12A, ceramics,
government), what part of the class would be incorporated online, and how this type of learning
could benefit students by supporting a blended learning model. Furthermore, the group will
decide how feasible this effort would be and why. The researcher-presenter will remind teacher
participants of the goals of blended learning. For example, one goal of blended learning is to
allow students self-pacing opportunities. To illustrate, if the class is to be used for testing only,
the group would need to decide how students would take the test asynchronously to magnify a
blended learning goal.
The last part of the training will be a brief share-out. Both small groups will provide a
summary of how Schoology could work for one class that is currently being taught. Groups will
listen and/or provide feedback to one another. If time permits, the researcher-presenter will
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 251

answer questions and will remind participants to consider their positions in classroom settings.
Finally, the researcher-presenter will ask if anybody’s views have been changed regarding how
they see themselves instructionally.

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 252

APPENDIX E
Stage Three Interview Protocol
Stage Three: One-On-One Interviews
1. How would you describe your level of understanding of online lesson planning?
2. What do you think would go into the creation of a blended learning model for one of your
classes?
3. How interested are you in teaching in a blended learning setting?
4. How confident are you to teach in a blended learning setting?
5. Do you see yourself converting one of your classes into a blended learning model any
time soon?
6. To what degree is implementation of more blended learning classes realistic at your
school?
7. Tell me whether teaching in a blended learning model could benefit you as an educator.
8. To what degree do you think your department members feel the same way?
9. In your opinion, do high school classroom teaching approaches need to change, or not?
10. Explain whether you think your teaching practice could change because of technology,
specifically online or blended learning?
11. To what extent do teachers at your school have the resources they need to help students
develop necessary communicative skills in the 21
st
century?
12. In your opinion, how much sharing of ideas goes on among colleagues, regarding
classroom teaching that includes technology, specifically online or blended learning?
13. Instructionally, what should a teacher prioritize at your school?
14. How necessary is professional development to your teaching?
DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 253

15. How did this professional development compare with other professional development
trainings you’ve had about technology?

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 254

APPENDIX F
Stage Four Focus Group Protocol
Stage Four: Focus Group
Key term: Technology
1. What are all the different types of technology teachers can use?
2. In your opinion, what is the best use of technology at school?
3. How should teachers be trained to use new technology?
4. In your opinion, should online learning or blended learning be a part of every classroom
experience, or only some subjects?
5. To what degree do teachers have access to new technology, specifically, teaching with
the Internet, at your school site?
6. To what degree should teachers have access to new technology, specifically, teaching
with the Internet, at your school site?
Key term: Professional Development
1. Describe an ideal professional development training.
2. To what degree does professional development improve your department outcomes?
3. What is the role of a technology coach?
4. Tell me your thoughts about the relationship between peer role models and teaching in
online or blended learning.
5. How much training do teachers need to be able to use online or blended learning models?
6. In your opinion, when should a teacher change instructional practice in the classroom?

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 255

Key term: Teaching
1. Characterize yourself as an educator in three words.
2. What is most important to you as a classroom teacher?
3. How do your professional priorities compare to those of your colleagues?
4. How would you describe an ideal teaching setting?
5. Within that setting, what kind of knowledge would be most important to have?
6. To what degree do you believe you are ready to teach in a blended learning model if you
could start in Fall 2017?
7. How necessary is teaching with blended learning, in terms of good teaching?

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 256

APPENDIX G
Evaluation Tool Level 2 and Level 1
Assessing Program Success in Level 2 and Level 1
Level 2 Learning

Survey

Rate:
(5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) somewhat agree (2) somewhat disagree (1) strongly disagree

Declarative Knowledge
1. Blended learning means putting part of my course into on online format where students
complete the work asynchronously.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. I have all the knowledge I need to run a blended learning classroom.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Procedural Skills
1. I can use Schoology to put part of my courses into an online format where students
complete the work asynchronously.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. I can assess students online and enter those grades on the school’s main grading system.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Attitude
1. Blended learning makes sense to me in the courses I teach.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 257

2. Blended learning can improve the quality of education for my students.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
Confidence
1. I feel able and ready to put one of my courses online.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. I need peer support to teach in a blended learning model.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
Commitment
1. I am going to include online and/or blended learning in my professional growth plan each
year.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. Online and blended learning are powerful additions to my face-to-face instruction.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

Interview (Confidence)
1. How have your beliefs changed about being able to teach online?
2. After the training program this school year, how confident do you feel to teach a course
online or in a blended learning model?
3. How confident do you feel to teach others about asynchronous instruction and
assessment?
Focus Group (Confidence)
1. Where are you now at the end of this training program, as a department who feels able to
teach online or in a blended learning model?
2. Who remains your go-to person for help with online or blended learning instruction?
3. How do you feel about your supervisors evaluating you in this type of teaching?

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 258

Level 1 Reaction

Survey
Rate:
(5) strongly agree (4) agree (3) somewhat agree (2) somewhat disagree (1) strongly disagree

Engagement
1. I really felt that the program trainers—my colleagues—were focused on me in each
professional development (PD) training we had about teaching online and/or in a blended
learning model.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. This year, I was so captivated by PD teaching strategies that I thought I might miss
something if I left the room.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
Relevance
1. The professional development trainings have taught me to be a better teacher.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. Each training session addressed my departmental and individual classroom needs.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
Customer Satisfaction
1. I came out of each professional development (PD) with valuable tools and insights.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. The PD trainings meant something to me both personally and professionally.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 259

APPENDIX H
Evaluation Tool Post-Implementation
Assessing Program Success Post-Implementation
Delayed Level 1 (Reaction)

Rating Scale Items
1. I have applied what I learned in the training program to my daily teaching.

Not at All Low Medium High

2. The information and substance of the training program impacted me directly and
positively.

Not at All Low Medium High
Open-ended Questions
1. How have you grown as an educator since last year’s training program?
2. What information from the training program has been most useful for you?
3. What was missing in this training program that could have helped you become a more
successful blended learning practitioner?
Delayed Level 2 (Learning)
Open-ended Questions
1. How confident are you now to be a blended learning teacher?
2. To what degree will you stick with online learning forums in your high school
instruction?
Delayed Level 3 (Behavior)
Rating Scale Items
1. My department continues to discuss and share fruitfully how to teach effectively in online
and/or blended learning forums.

Not at All Low Medium High

2. My supervisors are more involved in my teaching related to blended learning.

Not at All Low Medium High

DIGITAL LEARNING IN K12 260

Open-ended Questions
1. How has discussion of teaching with technology, specifically, the Internet, changed or
grown in your department?
2. To what degree are you and your department members working in mentorships?
3. How supportive is leadership of any instructional changes you have made to include
online and/or blended learning forums?
Delayed Level 4 (Results)
Rating Scale Items
1. I feel much more supported and empowered by my organization.

Not at All Low Medium High

2. Our school communicates often and effectively with the district, regarding teaching with
technology.

Not at All Low Medium High

3. I have what I need to do my job well.

Not at All Low Medium High

4. My questions and concerns are addressed effectively by technology coaches.

Not at All Low Medium High
Open-ended Questions
1. To what degree is your voice heard in this organization?
2. To what degree are you teaching with technology?
3. How would you describe any changes in teaching approach at your school site, both
individually and schoolwide, after this training program?

Asset Metadata

Creator Thompson, Shea-Alison Rose (author)

Core Title Digital learning in K12: putting teacher professional identity on the line

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/30/2017

Defense Date 10/03/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag blended learning,digital learning,oai:digitallibrary.usc.edu:usctheses,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,professional development,teacher professional identity,traditional instructional model

Language English

Advisor Maddox, Anthony (committee chair), Houston, Velina Hasu (committee member), Italiano, Francesca (committee member)

Creator Email shea_alison@yahoo.com,sheaalit@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-448958

Unique identifier UC11265576

Identifier etd-ThompsonSh-5860.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-448958 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ThompsonSh-5860.pdf

Dmrecord 448958

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Thompson, Shea-Alison Rose

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Teachers in the 21st century continue to teach with little change to pedagogy, practice, or professional identity. Professional development (PD) remains largely ineffective as a tool for promoting instructional change or new identity formation. Teachers at Senior High School X reflect a significant problem of practice in education: reduced inclination to use information and communication technologies (ICT) in the classroom. This dissertation study was a contribution to existing research on teacher use of the Internet in instruction, and identity transformation. The framework for the study addressed stakeholder assumed influences in knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers (KMO) that impacted the performance goal of technology-infused instruction. The study was wholly qualitative and the researcher collected data at the school site. Research findings answered the three original research questions: how KMO impacted teacher use of ICT, specifically blended learning, how PD impacted teacher professional identity, and whether innovative delivery of PD could impact teacher inclination to use ICT in the classroom. The three research findings, supported by themes, were: teachers were divided internally, externally, individually, and collectively in terms of KMO barriers, PD impacted professional identity by strengthening teachers as educators if the PD was relevant to their practice, and innovative PD could be a positive experience. Findings suggested that teachers are willing to change. Teacher stakeholders need to be the mouthpiece and leaders of organizational change that promotes meaningful technology-infused instruction. Implications for the field are that teachers need more support, resources, and access, and must possess a strong voice to be at the forefront of (a) identity transformation, and (b) inclusion of blended learning.