University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

(USC Thesis Other)

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 1
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY: A CASE STUDY
OF A PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL
by
Veronica May Lui Maddox
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation 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
May 2016
Copyright 2016 Veronica May Lui Maddox
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 2
DEDICATION
This dissertation work is dedicated to my incredibly supportive husband Ryan. Before we
were married, he understood my aspiration for knowledge and pursue a doctoral. I remembered
he had just completed his 16th season of football, earning his fourth California Interscholastic
Federation (CIF) title. Jacob was 5 and Peyton was 2 years old when we agreed that this would
be the perfect time for me to go back to school. After many prayers and much consideration, we
selected the University of Southern California and did not look back. His unwavering support,
devotion, and love provided me the encouragement needed so that I was able to accomplish my
lifelong goal. I thank Ryan─I could not ask for a more devoted and loving husband.
I love my two children, Jacob and Peyton, so much. I have also dedicated this dissertation
to both of them for persisting through these past 3 years despite my hectic schedule. I remember
when they have sat next to me to finish their own homework while I was completing my home-
work at the dining room table. This was their way of supporting and encouraging me. I thank
them for their hugs and laughter; they keep me going. May they achieve their own goals through
courage, tenacity, and perseverance.
I also dedicate this work to my mother Helen and my little sister Vanessa. I thank them
for their ongoing support at home and school while I pursued my career and my education. Both
have been amazing throughout this process. I could not have accomplished this task without their
love, support, and flexibility. They have demonstrated to me the power and devotion of mother-
hood, and I thank them for being my role models and my inspiration.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge my family and my friends for the numerous of ways that they supported
me throughout this doctoral process. I thank my dad, Tom; his service to our country as a Marine
has made me feel honored to be his daughter, and the work ethic he demonstrated to me has been
a part of my daily practice. I thank my older brother Howie for game and movie nights with my
kids when class and homework demanded my attention. My little brother Christopher taught me
about perseverance and the appreciation of the deaf community, the culture, and sign language. I
thank my in-laws, Guy, Linda, Lauren, and Krista, for their encouragement. I thank my friends,
Michelle, Kellie, Mike, Alex, and Marc, for their guidance and support.
I also acknowledge my dissertation committee members. Dr. Stuart Gothold, as our dis-
sertation chair, gave indispensable guidance and unyielding commitment to ensure that our dis-
sertations were completed on time. I am appreciative of deadlines. Dr. Dennis Hocevar took a
cab all the way to USC when his car broke down on the way to our proposal defense; we were
grateful. I appreciate the insightfulness and teaching of approaches to balanced leadership pro-
vided by Dr. John Roach; I thank him for serving on my dissertation committee. Also, thanks to
Dr. Michael Escalante, who stepped in at the last minute to be a part of our dissertation commit-
tee. Finally, I thank my USC friends and dissertation cohort; their friendship, support, and
encouragement have carried me through this process.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 14
Methodology 16
Significance of the Study 17
Limitations of the Study 18
Delimitations 19
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Dissertation 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
Context of Technology for This Study 21
Technology Integration Beliefs of Teachers 23
Benefits of Embracing Technology 26
Access to Technology 30
Support for Technology Use 32
Theoretical Models 34
Chapter Summary 37

Chapter Three: Methodology 41
Research Questions 41
Research Design and Methods 42
Document Review 44
Survey 44
Interview 45
Observation 48
Sampling 49
Access/Entry 50
Data Collection Approach 51
Data Analysis 51
Creditability and Trustworthiness 51
Ethics 52

Chapter Four: Results 53
Description of the Case Study School 53
Description of Data Collection Methods 54
Analysis 56
Research Questions 57
Research Question 1 57
Technology access 58
Technology-integrated practices 60
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 5
Research Question 2 62
Professional development 63
Coaching 65
Research Question 3 66
Site leadership 67
District leadership 68
Research Question 4 70
Discussion of Themes and Findings 72
Purposeful Professional Development and Teacher Training 73
Comprehensive Access to Technology 74
District and Site-Level Support 74
Applying Instructional Practices With the SAMR Model and
the TPACK Framework 76
Teacher Collaboration and Teachers Learning From Teachers 78
Chapter Summary 78

Chapter Five: Discussion 80
Purpose of the Study 80
Implications for Education 81
Recommendations for the Education Profession 84
Recommendations for Future Research 85
Conclusion 86

References 89

Appendices
Appendix A: Document Review Protocol 96
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 97
Appendix C: Interview Questions 99
Appendix D: Observation Protocol 100
Appendix E: Interview Cover Letter/Email 102
Appendix F: Consent Form 103
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Interviews 55
Table 2: Observations 56
Table 3: Survey Results for Research Question 1 58
Table 4: Survey Results for Research Question 2 63
Table 5: Survey Results for Research Question 3 67
Table 6: Survey Results for Research Question 4 70
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR)
conceptual framework used in this study 39
Figure 2: The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) conceptual
framework 40
Figure 3: Available technology for Focus Area 1 (Access) for Research Question 1 59
Figure 4: Available technology practices for Focus Area 2 (Practices) for
Research Question 1 61
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 8
ABSTRACT
As schools continue to integrate technology into the classroom, the focus has been to
ensure that educators are able to maximize the use of technology integration to transform teach-
ing and learning. This mixed-methods approach was applied to address four research questions
related to transformational technology use in K–12 schools focused on four key areas: technol-
ogy integration used to support student learning by educators, technology integration skill and
knowledge of educators, technology integration support for educators, and technology integra-
tion and implementation beliefs held by educators. This case study was conducted at a public
middle school in California that demonstrated a commitment to purposeful technology integra-
tion. This study applied the Substitute Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model
and the Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework to understand the
use of technology integration and the impact on the teaching and learning.
Data were collected and triangulated through document analysis, staff surveys, inter-
views, and observations to support four major finding that indicated evidence of transformational
technology integration. The first finding addressed purposeful and specified professional devel-
opment along with teacher training. The second finding identified comprehensive access to tech-
nology for students and teachers to utilize for technology integration implementation. The third
finding identified the district and site-level leadership support for daily use of technology inte-
gration. The fourth finding showed that transformative instructional practices were evident when
practices were applied through the lens of the SAMR model and the TPACK framework. These
instructional practices were purposeful, with support provided by district and site-level leader-
ship, as well as purposeful technology integration into professional development and teacher
training.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In the United States, public schools have been urged to provide digital tools and
resources to facilitate technology skills that all students require as they exit the K-12 system
(Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], 2013). In addition, California adopted the Common
Core State Standards and, along with these standards, outlined the knowledge and skills that are
required for every student to master (California Department of Education [CDE], 2013a). These
skills are 21st-century skills, identified as communication, critical thinking, creativity, and col-
laboration (P21, 2013). Technology can promote these 21st-century skills by increasing student
collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity (Warschauer, 2011).
Although many teachers utilize technology for the purpose of delivering information and
communication, the blueprint for California educational technology entitled Empowering
Learning calls on K-12 schools to utilize technology to support students to think critically, com-
municate, be creative, and collaborate (CDE, 2014). According to Puentedura (2013), these 21st-
century skills can be taught most effectively through technology integration when the experience
for the students is at the transformational level. Transformational technology outcomes allow for
the task to enable new learning that is not possible without the use of technology (Puentedura,
2013). Furthermore, transformational technology supports the design of an environment in which
the learner is at the center of instruction rather than technology being used as an instruction tool
for the teacher (An & Reigeluth, 2011). However, technology integration has often been reported
to be poorly implemented in classroom instruction (Brooke, 2013).
As schools in California implement the blueprint for educational technology with the
campaign headed by Superintendent of Education Tom Torlakson, No Child Left Off-Line
(NCLOL), which is his vision for one-to-one technology for all educators and students in
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 10
California (CDE, 2014), educators will be obligated to have the strategies to implement technol-
ogy integration to support students to master 21st-century skills. In order for students to master
these 21st-century skills, teachers’ pedagogical approach will require a shift from teacher-
centered to student-centered environment (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, &
Sendurur, 2012). Based on these assertions, additional research is necessary to understand how
schools are integrating technology into their teaching and learning practices. This study builds on
research related to current instructional practices of educational technology. Exploration of
approaches taken in supporting educators in implementing student-centered digital environments
will add to the current research.
Background of the Problem
With the birth of the digital age, technology has changed the expectations of education
from information communication technology (ICT) to utilizing technology for the purpose of
mastering 21st-century skills (P21, 2013). This shift is imperative for educators with release of
California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 484 in fall 2013, suspending the majority of the traditionally
administered paper-pencil state assessments in preparation for the next generation of state
assessment administration practices (CDE, 2013b). In 2014, California began its transition from
traditionally administered state assessments via paper-pencil procedures to utilizing computers to
administer these assessments to measure student performance on the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). In spring 2015, students in California demonstrated their performance on the
CCSS as they participated in the state assessment called Smarter Balanced Assessment System in
English-Language Arts and Mathematics with the use of a computer-adaptive technology plat-
form. This type of testing administration necessitates access to technology devices and oppor-
tunities to demonstrate learning on these digital devices by K-12 students (CDE, 2014).
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 11
Therefore, educators must integrate technology within the teaching and learning process; how-
ever, they do not necessarily possess the strategies to implement this change (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013).
The intention of student-centered educational technology has been reinforced by the
increase in technology devices purchased for both teachers and students. Technology access for
teachers and students has gradually increased in California public schools over the years (Inan &
Lowther, 2010). Specifically, there has been an increase in the number of schools that have
instituted a one-to-one technology device initiative. These one-to-one initiatives continue to
grow steadily among K-12 schools and districts in California (D. Brown & Warschauer, 2006).
For this study, one-to-one technology is defined as students’ and educators’ ability to connect to
the Internet with devices enabled for learning to occur anytime, anywhere (CDE, 2014). In most
one-to-one technology programs, students carry the devices from class to class and utilize the
devices in their classrooms on a daily basis (November, 2013). They are also able to take these
devices home, with the understanding that they have the technology ready for daily classroom
activities. This digital device escalation has led to exploration of how educators are currently
utilizing technology as an instructional tool to support student learning.
Although access to devices has increased rapidly, teachers’ beliefs may contribute to a
lack of technology integration in the teaching and learning process. Evidence has suggested that
teachers do not provide authentic student-centered opportunities with the use of technology
devices, based on teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the teaching and learning
process (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration
translate into their instructional practices (Brush & Hew, 2007; DeMeester, Kim, Kim, Lee, &
Spector, 2013). There are strong indications that most teachers do not change their behavior
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 12
without changing their belief (Kim et al., 2013). However, teachers may believe that technology
is an important component in the teaching and learning process but teachers need support to
integrate the technology (Kopcha, 2012). Brush and Hew (2007) suggested that considerations
should be taken to address teachers’ beliefs. These considerations included teachers’ knowledge
and skills and institutional support (Brush & Hew, 2007). Along with studying the aspects of
teachers’ knowledge and skills, this investigation studies the supports provided by the institution
for technology integration and implementation.
Statement of the Problem
Technology is a tool to increase student collaboration, communication, critical thinking,
and creativity. Although the presence of K-12 technology has increased, its integration and
implementation in curriculum and instruction are inconsistent. Technology devices have been
identified as one of the crucial elements, when utilized appropriately, to increase student collabo-
ration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity (P21, 2013). These 21st-century skills are
expected of students so they can perform on a digital platform with the launch of the Smarter
Balanced Assessment System.
Although technology access for teachers and students has increased, technology integra-
tion in the teaching and learning process has been sporadic (Blackwell, Lauricella, Robb,
Schomburg, & Wartella, 2013). When attempts to integrate technology have occurred, integra-
tion was often found to be poorly implemented into classroom instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino,
2007). However, research suggests that student-centered technology integration issues can be
addressed through implementation of supports, such as providing subject-specific demonstrations
and hands-on practice (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 13
Professional development has been acknowledged as a critical need for teachers who are
attempting to alter their teaching practices (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Building confidence in
technology integration among teachers to provide a student-centered instructional approach has
been identified as a critical component of professional development. However, some teachers
have claimed that professional development has not been geared toward student-centered class-
room instruction (An & Reigeluth, 2011). Furthermore, the suggestion for further research has
included examining schools that have technology-integrated student-centered classrooms (An &
Reigeluth, 2011). Also, it is important to examine support incorporated into the learning process
because support after professional development can increase teacher confidence to develop
pedagogical skills in technology (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
Schools with successful one-to-one technology integration have demonstrated an increase
in student literacy skills (Dhir, Gahwaji, & Nyman, 2013). Students who engaged in frequent use
of technology benefitted more than students who did not do so (Cavanaugh, Dawson, &
Ritzhaupt, 2012). Although schools may support technology access for teachers and students,
even these supportive efforts do not always yield successful technology integration practices
(Inan & Lowther, 2010). In fact, according to Leonard and Leonard (2006), teachers in these
supportive schools are often found to be resistant to integrating technology in the teaching and
learning process. Therefore, with uneven integration efforts and results, currently there are
students who are not engaging with technology devices on a regular basis. This is problematic
because not all students are actively utilizing technology in classrooms, decreasing their ability
to have similar experiences and development of skills. Although educators are aware of the
importance of technology integration, practices are often lacking or absent (Inan, Lowther, Ross,
& Strahl, 2012).
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 14
Based on these suggestions, the roll-out of technology integration with one-to-one
devices requires careful planning and consideration for incorporating student collaboration, criti-
cal thinking, communication, and creativity in the classrooms (CDE, 2014). Therefore, it is
important to examine the current practices of transformational technology in the K-12 setting
where the learning environment embraces the student-centered instructional approach. In addi-
tion, further study is required to explore the strategies and supports developed to integrate tech-
nology as an instructional tool to support student learning in a secondary school.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a public secondary school
that had been actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction.
Specifically, this study examined Northsouth Middle School (NMS; pseudonym), a self-
identified institution actively integrating and implementing technology.
The study explored several components. Educators’ beliefs about technology integration
were important to ascertain for the purpose of this study. Along with beliefs, gathering
information about what the educators attributed their knowledge and skill about technology inte-
gration helped to identify the influences at NMS. The investigation provides insight into the
current practices of educators in supporting student learning with the use of technology. To
understand technology integration at NMS, this study examined the support that was provided
for implementation of the student-centered classroom.
Despite fiscal investments and increased access to technological devices in K-12 educa-
tion, technology integration in the teaching and learning cycle has been minimal (Brooke, 2013).
The implementation of technology in the classroom has often been poorly applied, even where
technology integration was observed within the instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). To
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 15
identify how educators utilized technology to influence the teaching and learning for students,
the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model (Puentedura, 2013)
was utilized.
The SAMR framework was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura to provide a tool for
teachers to scaffold technology integration into their classrooms. This framework offers educa-
tors checkpoints of their progression with integration of technology in their instruction. There are
four levels identified in the SAMR model. Level 1 begins with Substitution, where students
complete a given task that could have been completed without the use of technology. Level 2 is
classified as Augmentation, where the given task includes benefits such as immediate feedback.
Level 3 is recognized as Modification, where computer technology is deemed necessary to
support collaboration and feedback for students. Level 4 is distinguished as Redefinition, where
technology is utilized to support student learning and the classroom task would not be possible
without the use of technology (Puentedura, 2013).
The literature review outlines current research related to technology integration beliefs,
benefits of such integrative practices, accessibility to devices, technology instructional and
maintenance support, and the theoretical framework for this instructional initiative. The theoreti-
cal framework utilized for this study is the SAMR framework model. The SAMR model can help
educators to understand and describe how to implement transformational technology integration
through student learning outcomes and expectations. With application of the SAMR model, the
study examined the implementation of technology integration in the teaching and learning
process at NMS, guided by four research questions developed by the research team:
1. How do educators at NMS integrate technology to support student learning?
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 16
2. To what factors do educators at NMS attribute their knowledge of instructional tech-
nology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at NMS provided support for technology integration and
implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at NMS?
Methodology
A mixed-methods research methodology was selected to address the research questions
for this study. The methodology included a survey, interviews, observations, and document
reviews. Based on the literature review in Chapter 2, the research questions were developed to
investigate a secondary school implementing one-to-one technology integration. This study
focused on exploration of the current transformational practices implemented to sustain
schoolwide technology integration. In order to accomplish the stated aims of the research, the
study population was based on specific criteria. A public secondary school that was actively
committed to integrating technology into the classroom school wide could provide the necessary
data to address the research questions.
The participants in this study consisted of educators at NMS who were identified as
instructional staff members. Several key factors contributed to selecting this particular secondary
site: (a) the quality and availability of educational technology, and (b) acknowledged increased
focus in the district on technology literacy of teachers and students. NMS emphasized the one-to-
one technology integration in their classrooms. These highlights are indicated on the school’s
homepage and the principal’s weekly newsletters. The district’s homepage also highlights their
districtwide one-to-one technology initiative, as well as their Local Control Accountability Plan
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 17
(LCAP) and Local Educational Agency Plan (LEAP). For these reason, NMS was considered to
be an ideal site for this study.
Significance of the Study
The study contributes to the current body of literature identifying possible strategies for
consideration when implementing educational technology for educators. This study specifically
identified a secondary school that was actively implementing student-centered transformational
technology, as defined by Puentedura (2013). These recommendations include the current
practices of educators in integrating technology to support student learning and the supports that
educators receive to sustain these efforts. These practices may be simulated at similar secondary
site educators as they attempt to implement technology integration into the teaching and learning
process. The reasons for reporting current practices is the hope that the information will be useful
to instructional educators such as teachers as they integrate technology into the teaching and
learning process. Also, instructional support staff, along with district and site administrators,
could utilize these findings as they plan, develop, and implement support systems for technology
integration.
Although some of the practices identified in this study may not be replicated at other
sites, some findings may be applicable to other secondary schools. For example, the SAMR
model may be considered as an instrument to assist in identifying current practices and utilized
for future instructional discussions. The use of the SAMR model can be the platform to create
awareness that is essential in progressing toward improving student outcomes with technology
integration in their schools. Other considerations may be applicable to other school sites within a
similar context.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 18
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of this study are acknowledged:
1. The research school was not within an urban school district in Orange County, Califor-
nia. Due to its location and the size of the study, generalizing the results of the study to other
urban school districts outside of Orange County may not be possible.
2. The participants who were interviewed provided their own accounts of the technology
integration practices at the target school. However, these finding may not be representative of all
one-to-one technology integration at secondary schools.
3. The study school acquired a city bond measure that contributed to a highly advanced
infrastructure and abundance of instructional technologies, a situation that is unique to most sec-
ondary systems in the state and the country; thus, the school site was atypically funded. The
availability of the funding enabled use of instructional devices and support services at the school,
which allowed the instructional staff to integrate technology in the classrooms on a daily basis.
Replicating this study at another site may produce results that are inconsistent with the results
obtained at this particular site because another secondary school site might be comparatively
deficient in terms of infrastructure, availability of instructional devices, and a built-in support
structure.
3. The data collection for this study took place over a period of 2 months, rather than the
scope of an entire academic school year. The short time frame may not have provided results to
serve as a full illustration of successful practices of the school in terms of technology integration.
4. The validity of the data was reliant on the chosen measurement instruments.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 19
5. Researcher bias is always a potential limitation. Although the researcher attempted to
be conscious of her biases, inferences made from the interviews and observations may still
reflect the researcher’s personal views.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were applied in this study:
1. The school site selection process utilized purposeful sampling.
2. The target population was teachers identified by the principal as ones who could
provide the most descriptive and rich data for this study.
3. Parents and students were not interviewed.
Definition of Terms
21st-century skills. Skills that students are required to obtain, such as critical thinking,
collaboration, adaptability, initiative, effective written and oral communication, accessing and
analyzing information, and curiosity and imagination (Wagner, 2008).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Standards designed to encourage highest
achievement by every student by defining the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students
should acquire at each grade level (CDE, 2013a).
Enhancement. Classification of substitution and augmentation based on the SAMR model
(Puentedura, 2013).
No Child Left Off-Line (NCLOL). California State Superintendent Torlakson’s one-to-
one technology slogan (CDE, 2014).
One-to-one. Students’ and educators’ ability to connect to the Internet with devices
enabled for learning to occur anytime, anywhere (CDE, 2014).
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 20
Professional development. Educational training to improve instruction (An & Reigeluth,
2011).
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR model). A model for
technology integration (Puentedura, 2013).
Smarter Balanced Assessment System. An assessment system based on the CCSS for
English-Language Arts and Mathematics that utilizes computer-adaptive tests and performance
tasks to allow students to demonstrate their 21st-century ability (CDE, 2014).
Technology integration. Application of technology in the teaching process to support and
enrich learning.
Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). A framework for technol-
ogy integration (Borko, Liston, & Whitcomb, 2009).
Transformational. Classification of modification and redefinition based on the SAMR
model.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation report of the case study is organized as follows. Chapter 1 provides an
introduction to the project. Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature reporting extant research
in the field, with particular attention to professional development, support systems, belief struc-
tures, the SAMR model, and the benefits that obtain in successful technology integration. Chap-
ter 3 explains the methodology and the research tools utilized for the study. Chapter 4 presents
the results related to the research questions. Chapter 5 presents the conclusion of the findings, as
well as possibilities and directions for further research.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter contains a statement of the purpose of the study, a review of extant related
the literature, and a critique of that literature. In the literature review section, research is related
to technology use during the teaching and learning process. The review addresses factors related
to teachers’ beliefs, the benefits of embracing technology, access to technology, support in the
use of technology, and theoretical frameworks for technology integration in the K-12 classroom.
Context of Technology for This Study
With the adoption of the CCSS came elevated expectations of college and career readi-
ness standards for students to master 21st-century skills (CDE, 2013a). Mastery of these skills is
essential for success in work and life (P21, 2013). Using technology, development of these skills
can increase a student’s ability to collaborate, communicate, think critically, and create (P21,
2013).
The need for students to mast these skills led the CDE to publish a 3-year technology
plan entitled Empowering Learning. This publication urged local educational agencies to provide
the tools and resources necessary for all students to acquire the skills for a technology-based
society as they go through the K-12 system in California. The plan charged California educators
not only to remain parallel with technology but to be innovative leaders in educational technol-
ogy (CDE, 2014).
Based on the vision for education technology in California and Superintendent
Torlakson’s NCLOL, the technology plan was released in April 2014. This 3-year technology
plan is intended as a reference for districts as they implement and integrate technology in the
teaching and learning process (CDE, 2014). Empowering Learning includes recommendations
for learning, teaching, assessment, and infrastructure. The state superintendent’s Education
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 22
Technology Task Force of stakeholders formulated recommendations contained in the plan. The
stakeholders included technology companies and digital content providers, who urged educators
to alter their current instructional practices (CDE, 2014).
NCLOL is the vision of one-to-one technology integration for all educators and students
in California. This blueprint charges educators to prepare students for careers and jobs, many of
which do not yet exist because of constantly evolving technological advances but will neverthe-
less emerge in the future. Thus, NCLOL assumes predictive responsibilities in the future, as well.
As the 21st-century initiative requires students to solve problems in different ways, it logically
follows that students should be taught in different ways.
Technology can provide different learning opportunities for students (Block & Jesness,
2012). Classrooms that are rich with technology integration allow students to experience what
they would not be able to experience otherwise. Through use of technology, teachers can incor-
porate real-world scenarios in the curricula or have students interact with students from other
countries in real time. This type of technology integration is considered transformational
(Puentedura, 2013). However, in general, despite investments in technology products in educa-
tion and attempts to develop a relevant, technology-based educational environment, technology
integration has been minimal (Brooke, 2013).
The extant literature revealed several internal and external barriers to formation of the
needed digital reform to meet 21st-century skill needs. Because it is important to identify the
types of support for technology integration, this literature review looks closely at factors that
contribute to educators integrating technology in the teaching and learning process. This case
study is an attempt to examine these contributing factors by looking at a school that considers
itself to be a digitally enhanced 21st-century school.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 23
Technology Integration Beliefs of Teachers
To meet the current demands of the CCSS and perform well on the Smarter Balanced
Assessment System, students require the ability to demonstrate their 21st-century skills on a
digital platform. Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration influence the use of technology
in classrooms (C. Brown, Delialioglu, & Semiral, 2008; Dexter, Doering, & Riedel, 2006; Hus &
Kuan, 2013; Kopcha, 2012; Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Swain, 2006). Teachers typically utilize
technology for grading, attendance, information, and communication. The literature strongly
suggests that teachers are reluctant and unenthusiastic about including technology in the teaching
and learning process (Leonard & Leonard, 2006). Therefore, teachers who have a more positive
attitude toward technology integration will be more likely to utilize technology in the teaching
and learning process (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
Studies have shown inconsistencies between teacher beliefs related to technology inte-
gration and those teachers’ instructional practices. Some of these studies suggest, not surpris-
ingly, that when time was afforded to teachers to plan and implement technology integration in
their content, they correspondingly incorporated technology in their lessons more often (C.
Brown et al., 2008). However, other studies have shown that teachers who agreed that technol-
ogy integration is important did not necessarily demonstrate corresponding incorporation of
technology in their classrooms (Chen, 2008). This contradicts the position that teachers’ beliefs
and instructional practices tend to be synonymous.
Although teachers have been found to be comfortable with technology integration, some
studies have indicated that they did not find value in applying the integration (Voogt, Fisser,
Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braakt, 2013; Swain, 2006). Beliefs can also be tied to knowledge; how-
ever, the contradictions identified in this literature review are emphasized when it is reported that
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 24
even teachers who were comfortable with technology were not consistently implementing tech-
nology integration (Voogt et al., 2013). Thus, it would be beneficial to know why teachers make
the decision to utilize technology (Voogt et al., 2013). Understanding why teachers make these
instructional decisions would provide a connection between beliefs and technology integration.
Teachers in some studies reported that they were confident in their abilities in educational
technology integration but were not instituting integration in their own teaching practices
(Swain, 2006). Some studies have revealed a seemingly more logically reason for a lack of tech-
nology integration: It was reported that some teachers were reluctant to integrate technology
because they did not believe that it was worthwhile to do so (Swain, 2006). Teachers expressed
that education programs with educational technology courses were helpful in developing their
self-efficacy (Swain, 2006). However, it would seem that, ultimately, their own beliefs about the
value of the use of technology in education hindered their own practices of technology integra-
tion (Swain, 2006). Teachers who are provided support for effective use of technology in class-
room instruction reported more integrated practices (Cox, Knezek, Knezek, ten Brummelhuis, &
Voogt, 2011).
The contradiction in the literature mentioned above, having to do with teachers’ beliefs,
is partially resolved by looking at the effects of mentors and mentioning programs. The literature
shows that teachers who worked closely with mentors to plan and prepare technology-integrated
lessons resulted in stronger beliefs in the efficacy of that integration (Kopcha, 2012). Teachers
were more likely to try new technology tools in their lessons when they had the support of men-
tors.
Mentoring opportunities were also found to improve teachers’ attitudes toward and use of
the integration of technology integration (Kopcha, 2012). Mentoring practices included
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 25
providing human capital through an integration expert such as a technology coach, another
teacher, or specialists. These findings show that these forms of mentoring resulted in an overall
increase in technology integration in teaching practices (Kopcha, 2012). The teachers were more
likely to attempt use of technology because they were able to consult with a technology expert.
When such support structures were available to teachers, the teachers were more likely to report
that technology integration was an important practice to include in their daily instruction in com-
parison to teachers who did not have such support, particularly in the form of a person identified
to provide educational technology support. Correspondingly, strong teacher beliefs in technology
integration can result in more successful implementation of technology in the teaching and
learning process (C. Brown et al., 2008). Understanding this possible connection becomes a rele-
vant concern.
In another study, teachers with advanced degrees were found to have stronger beliefs in
incorporating technology in their classrooms (Hus & Kuan, 2013). The teachers with advanced
degrees integrated technology more often than did teachers without advanced degrees (Hus &
Kuan, 2013). Providing a schoolwide approach to prepare teachers to integrate technology in
their content areas can improve teachers’ beliefs (Dexter et al., 2006). Teachers who experience
ongoing professional learning support with experts and peers demonstrated more positive beliefs
about technology integration. The collaboration resulted in an increase in confidence about tech-
nology integration (Levin & Wadmany, 2008). Based on these findings, it can be concluded that
the teachers in that study increased and improved their use of technology in the teaching and
learning process (Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013), teachers currently view curricular
practices and educational technology as two separate objectives. To integrate technology in the
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 26
teaching and learning process, assisting teachers to move from segmenting instructional and
technology integration has become a need. The change will be to move toward constructing the
goals as one overarching focus of learning for both curriculum and educational technology
(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). The instructional need for technology integration may
require technology-absent classrooms to reconsider current instructional practices and change.
This change will require a process and support to sustain innovative improvements of technology
in education. Chen (2008) asserted that teachers are the center of this change.
Addressing the beliefs of teachers can increase application of technology in the teaching
and learning process. Teacher training can include effective teaching strategies with the use of
technology to improve teachers’ beliefs (Chen, 2008). Teachers’ beliefs would benefit greatly
from understanding how technology can improve the teaching and learning process (Chen,
2008). Exploring the benefits of beliefs in this study will assist in determining whether there is
an association between beliefs and technology integration.
Benefits of Embracing Technology
Student-centered technology-integrated classrooms to support 21st-century learning have
been a well-recognized instructional practice. Technology has been embraced by teachers in
several ways. In a study of an urban middle school, students were found to have significant
increases in scores on mathematic tests when they were exposed to daily use of technology
instruction, in comparison to students who were not exposed to this method (Anthony & Clark,
2011). These students were provided web-based enrichment activities on a daily basis. The daily
utilization of technology for students supports the vision of NCLOL.
Other scholarly literature has identified other benefits of embracing technology integra-
tion. A meta-analysis of more than 1,055 studies conducted over a period of 40 years clearly
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 27
suggested that technology can affect learning positively (Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski,
& Tamim, 2011). This meta-analysis carefully noted that technology-only classrooms did not
demonstrate positive differences when compared to technology-absent classrooms. According to
Warschauer (2011), schools that were widely utilizing digitally based tutorials, also referred to
“drill and kill,” were often unsuccessful in increasing student achievement. However, positive
effects on academic achievement have been reported when technology is integrated to match the
same curricular goals (C. Brown et al., 2008). Thus, the benefits of technology are realized when
the teaching and learning process includes use of technology, rather than when the latter is used
to supersede the former.
Similarly, evidence of an increase in student achievement has demonstrated positive
results when classroom instruction is enhanced with technology, in comparison to technology-
absent classrooms. According to the literature, these positive results occurred with instructional
practices and included any level of technology integration (Abrami et al., 2011). Technology-
integrated lessons resulted in students benefitting from these enhancements by improving their
literacy in technology (Abrami et al., 2011; Block, Chou, & Jesness, 2012; Cavanaugh et al.,
2012; Cox et al., 2011; Labbo & Place, 2010; Perrotta, 2013; Shieh, 2012).
As the demands for students to be equipped with 21st-century skills increase, strong
technology literacy is essential for students. These digital literacy skills are now considered a
basic requirement for students to perform proficiently upon entering postsecondary education or
careers (CDE, 2014). These basic skills can best be acquired by students when classrooms are
rich with technology integration. Based on these needs, research strongly suggests that students
are in need of access to technology on a regular basis in order to acquire these skills (Labbo &
Place, 2010). Without daily practice of necessary technology skills, students may fall behind in
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 28
the digital era of education and careers. This requires teachers to alter their daily practice to inte-
grate technology more frequently.
When lessons are enhanced through use of technology, benefits are increased both in
terms of content and resources (Perrotta, 2013). Online information, although it must be continu-
ally verified for accuracy, can be more current and more accurate than the adopted textbooks
provided by the district. Access to the most up-to-date information is obviously of benefit to
students. Students are able to learn how to utilize technology to obtain this information more
quickly (Labbo & Place, 2010). This also allows students to develop research and curating skills
and become independent information seekers. These digitally enhanced approaches and lessons
can have a positive impact on learning (Block & Jesness, 2012).
Teachers have also experienced an increase in student motivation to learn when technol-
ogy has been used to enhance lessons (Perrotta, 2013). Students were found to be more engaged
when offered technology tools as part of the learning process (Labbo & Place, 2010).
Technology-based lessons have included virtual field trips to an aquarium or art exhibits, bring-
ing the outside world into the learning opportunities of the classroom. Based on teacher
responses to surveys, research reveals that, when technology is integrated into the learning
process, improvement in students’ attitudes toward school follows (Abrami et al., 2011).
Students who are recognized for their own technology skills also exhibit a more positive
experience regarding the school experience (Labbo & Place, 2010). Such positive feelings may
also facilitate an increase in learning.
Many schools have initiated one-to-one technology programs. Current research would
seem to indicate that, when schools attempt to integrate technology into the curriculum, better
student performance is the result. Handheld devices such as iPads utilized in the classroom have
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 29
demonstrated positive results in student literacy skills (Dhir et al., 2013). A recent meta-analysis
of 72 studies related to the benefits of one-to-one iPad instruction identified benefits related to
academic experience and student motivation with iPad use. Specifically, the students were found
to have improved literacy skills based on the mobile learning practices in the classroom (Dhir et
al., 2013). Results were based on successful integration of one-to-one technology efforts, in this
case facilitating the use of iPads in instructional practices.
Cavanaugh et al. (2012) surveyed 732 teachers on the student use of technology and
reported significant findings. The survey responses indicated that students were able to utilize
technology on a frequent basis and benefited more than students who engaged with technology
irregularly. This led the researchers to conclude that accessibility and regular interactions with
technology had the potential to provide students with skills to communicate more effectively, be
creative, and collaborate with others through the use of technology. These 21st-century practices
helped to build higher-order thinking skills and create a more engaging atmosphere for students
(Cavanaugh et al., 2012).
A case study on the use of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) by a physics
teacher showed that students in the intervention group outperformed those in the control group
(Shieh, 2012). TEAL is a technology media-learning tool. The control group was provided tradi-
tional classroom lectures and laboratory activities during class. Shieh conducted assessments,
classroom observations, and interviews that showed an increase in posttest scores in comparison
to the pretests administered in the teacher’s physics class. The students were more interested in
the digitally enhanced instruction, creating a positive response to attending physics class. The
benefits of technology integration appeared across content areas. However, despite the momen-
tum of one-to-one technology initiatives in K-12 education today, teachers are typically not
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 30
integrating technology in their classrooms (Anthony & Clark, 2011; Lawless & Pellegrino,
2007). Based on the current lack of technology integration in the teaching and learning process,
it has become urgent to study the factors contributing to digitally rich classrooms.
Access to Technology
As discussed thus far, varieties of research have identified the benefits of technology
integration in the classroom but teachers and have indicated another critical component of tech-
nology integration in the classroom (Brush & Hew, 2007): access. Access refers to the ability of
teachers and students to utilize technology devices for the teaching and learning process.
Access to technology has previously posed an issue for teachers. Access to technology
includes such varied issues as material resources and funds (Brush & Hew, 2007), availability of
technology, and allotted time and support for technology use, as well as accessibility to the right
type of technology (Labbo & Place, 2010). According to Brush and Hew (2007), teachers
reported that a lack of funds to purchase devices and technology-based programs precluded inte-
gration of technology into their classrooms. Furthermore, the findings indicated that, when was
technology made available, access was limited. Teachers in the study noted that time seemed to
be a factor when they were encouraged to plan, develop, and collaborate with peers to create
technology-integrated lessons (Brush & Hew, 2007). Hutchison (2012) reported that limited
access to devices during professional development was a barrier for teachers, who stated that
they would learn best by applying the learning during these opportunities.
Labbo and Place (2010) reported that conditions of successful technology integration in a
classroom have included access to technology that fits well with the curriculum. Teachers in that
study reported a lack of necessary technology applicable to their content area and curricular
goals. Another condition identified in the study addressed students’ issues with access both at
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 31
school and at home. Teachers may work to secure computer lab time but may have to compete
with other teachers who are interested in utilizing the lab for word processing activities with their
students. According to Labbo and Place (2010), due to these conflicts, some schools are now
moving away from computer labs and toward laptop or iPad carts for teachers. This change in
practice may provide schools and teachers more flexibility and accessibility to technology
devices.
Inan and Lowther (2010) reported that the technology device-to-student ratio has
increased overall, reflecting improving access to technology. With this increase, one might
assume that technology classroom integration has improved correspondingly. However,
technology-enhanced teaching practices have not necessarily improved simply as a result of
greater access.
The cause for the lack of correspondence between access and improved instruction was
explained by Cavanaugh et al. (2012), who revealed that, even with greater access to technology
devices, instructional practice seems to have remained teacher centered. Thus, the teacher
remains critical to the educational environment and the shift to student-centered technology-rich
instruction. According to Cavanaugh et al. (2012), observations of technology-integrated class-
room instruction showed teachers delivering instruction via digitally enhanced presentations or
lectures. Current technology integration practices do not typically provide the technology tools
directly to the students (Cavanaugh et al., 2012). Although in some cases students may have the
devices in their hands, learning is passive in digitally enhanced presentations. Since educational
technology initiatives require students to become digitally competent, the access issue and how
technology is utilized to integrate into the teaching and learning process were explored in this
case study.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 32
Blackwell et al. (2013) asserted that, while there has been an increase in technology
devices in schools, there is a potential digital divide among early educators. Their survey
revealed less technology access for teachers of middle-income students than for teachers who
served upper- and lower-income students. Cotton, Farkas, Niiya, Warschauer, and Zheng (2014)
asserted that access to digital devices for students is only the first step in integrating technology.
Based on their study of three school districts, deployment of their One Laptop per Child (OLPC)
program revealed the school district serving low-income families discussed difficulties with
maintaining efforts in the one-to-one programs due to financial challenges. These financial chal-
lenges may create a digital divide for districts serving families with modest incomes in compari-
son to districts serving families with higher incomes.
Support for Technology Use
The ability of teachers to integrate technology in the classroom plays a significant role in
enhancing teaching and learning through technology. There are factors that positively influence
the integration of technology in the classroom and there are also factors that can prevent teachers
from integrating technology. Teachers have reported that they struggle with incorporating tech-
nology in their teaching practices regardless of their background with technology integration
(Leary et al., 2012).
According to Cotton et al. (2014), based on their study of deployment of OLPC in three
districts suggested that implementation, maintenance, and teacher support are critical for effec-
tive technology integration. Support for teachers was identified in the form of professional
development, device training, and in-class coaching; it was noted that such support should be
taken into consideration to demonstrate its positive effects on student learning and achievement.
Cotton et al. (2014) concluded that support for teachers was aligned to how the technology was
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 33
used in the classroom. The study suggests that support may positively influence student learning
and achievement outcomes.
Research has clearly shown that teachers who receive support can improve the use of
technology integration in the classroom for instructional purposes (Brush & Hew, 2007; Hus &
Kuan, 2013; Kopcha, 2012; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Leary et al., 2012). However, Lawless
and Pellegrino (2007) identified professional development as the primary way to change teaching
practices although it is inadequate for the purpose of integrating technology. Brush and Hew
(2007) suggested implementation of professional development for teachers that specifically inte-
grates technology in the content area. This may materially improve the use of technology inte-
gration in the classroom. Positive results were demonstrated in increasing technology integration
knowledge when the professional development was specifically targeted (Leary et al., 2012). In
addition, schools with successful implementation have identified teachers as technology leads,
who then assist in supporting and collaborating with other teachers.
In a study surveying 3,729 teachers, Hus and Kuan (2013) identified specific contributors
to technology integration practices. Teachers in that study noted that technology integration was
more successful when the teachers had collaboration time with specifically identified expert
technology staff. The teachers also noted that working with technology staff members made
them more comfortable to try new technology-based programs in their classrooms. Working with
specifically identified technology staff, teachers improved their technology knowledge and skills,
which increased their self-efficacy. The teachers’ increased technology proficiency, gained
through support, resulted in an overall increase in technology integration (Hus & Kuan, 2013).
The facilitation of appropriate technology-based ongoing professional development has
been identified as necessary to support teachers to integrate technology. Cavanaugh et al. (2012)
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 34
reported that survey responses from teachers indicated that professional development that was
subject specific positively included the teachers’ technology skills. This positive effect improved
teachers’ confidence and ability to integrate technology in the curriculum. The teachers were
provided opportunities to work in a professional learning community that reinforced support to
attempt new lessons. These findings indicate that, when the focus of a school is flexibility and a
student-centered approach, teachers are more likely to integrate technology effectively.
The research in this section of the literature review can be summarized as follows:
Appropriate support is necessary for teachers to integrate technology in the teaching and learning
process. Such support has been identified in the research as professional development, technical
support with an expert, collaboration opportunities, and allotment of time. Technology integra-
tion is a shift in traditional pedagogical practices and therefore requires continuous support. In
this case study, particular attention is given to the support system developed by the target school.
Theoretical Models
Technology has been implemented in the teaching and learning process in various ways.
Rather than technology being used only for communication, technology integration is classified
as the use of technology as a tool for teaching and learning. The extant research on technology
integration is model reliant. This section of the chapter highlights various models identified in
the field literature.
Technology is integrated in the classroom by teachers in many ways. Voogt et al. (2013)
affirmed that the TPACK conceptual framework describes pedagogical content knowledge as the
foundation for TPACK. Teachers who developed in the domains of technology, pedagogy, and
content knowledge were found to be successful in building technology-based lessons (Voogt et
al., 2013). Each domain is developed to improve the development of teachers’ knowledge and
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 35
skills. Cumulatively, these domains formulate the TPACK conceptual framework (Voogt et al.,
2013). These teachers also experienced improved knowledge about students, curriculum, and
pedagogical practices. According to Borko et al. (2009), when all of these components intersect,
teachers provide a technology-based student-centered learning environment.
Block, Chou, and Jesness (2012) identified another framework for appropriate
technology-relevant professional development called the performance-based faculty develop-
ment model. There are five major components to this model: formal training, communities of
practice, performance support, formative evaluation, and knowledge sharing (Block & Jesness,
2012). This framework begins with technology integration workshops, followed by learning
support with peers and experts. Subsequently, performance support is offered through various
venues. These venues can take place as online or direct support from a staff member. A forma-
tive evaluation is included to offer timely assistance to the teacher (Block & Jesness, 2012).
In 2009, Puentedura (2013) introduced the SAMR model. The SAMR model is based on
a framework developed to support teachers in integrating technology impacting instruction and
learning. This framework identifies four levels of technology integration. The model assists edu-
cators to construct optimal teaching and learning experiences for the classroom. The SAMR
framework can assist educators to identify their goals in developing a lesson that integrates tech-
nology.
According to Kidder, Romrell, and Wood (2014), the most beneficial categories of tech-
nology integration are those that have been demonstrated to be efficacious in transforming
learning. Most classrooms only enhance learning through technology. The SAMR model identi-
fies four classifications of technology integration in a given lesson: substitution, augmentation,
modification, and redefinition (Puentedura, 2013). The SAMR framework categorizes
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 36
substitution and augmentation under enhanced learning, while modification and redefinition are
intended to transform learning (Kidder et al., 2014).
The goal is to have teachers become accomplished in redefinition. Through use of the
SAMR model, teachers can own their teaching and learning process with technology integration
by self-identifying and self-evaluation. They can utilize this process to move toward redefinition
in a self-paced manner. This is the most effective way for teachers to measure their technology
integration practices (Kidder et al., 2014).
Substitution is the simplest form of technology integration in the classroom. This cate-
gory is most typically found in classrooms. This level is described as an activity that is accompa-
nied by technology that does not originally require technology (Kidder et al., 2014). For
example, students are provided tablets to write their answer electronically; in this example, the
tablet replaces the function of a white board and dry erase marker. Another example of substitu-
tion is downloadable textbooks (Block & Jesness, 2012). Students refer to their textbook pages
from their mobile devices, rather than turning the pages of their textbooks.
Augmentation is the next level of the SAMR framework. This classification refers to
activities taking a step above mere substitution of convention with technology. This category
aims for improvement over conventional pedagogy through use of technology in the lesson. An
activity is classified as augmentation when learners connect to the information and noticeable
improvement is demonstrated (Kidder et al., 2014). For example, students are provided a video
and audio presentation to make connections to animals that they may have not seen before
(Block & Jesness, 2012). This can assist students to learn how these animals interact, live, and
communicate in their habitat.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 37
Modification follows augmentation on the SAMR framework. The activities identified in
this category are presumed to be efficacious in transforming learning. Modification allows
learning activities to be restructured (Block & Jesness, 2012). This restructure helps learners to
acquire simulations of real-world experiences and demonstrate improved learning (Kidder et al.,
2014). For example, a teacher may utilize text messaging to provide real-time instruction or to
simulate real-world experiences. Another example is having students work in groups with social
media networks to complete group work (Kidder et al., 2014). Teachers who plan activities that
fall in the modification classification can shift into redefinition more efficiently.
Redefinition is the highest type of learning activity in the SAMR model. This category
includes activities that are personalized, with results that can be created only through technology
(Kidder et al., 2014). If the activity is possible without technology, then it is not considered a
redefinition activity. For example, the activity for a lesson includes the use of specific applica-
tions such as a global positioning system (GPS) application from a handheld device to pinpoint
students’ location in learning a new language. Another example is giving students an assignment
that requires them to create three-dimensional images and overlays as part of their project. The
students’ given activities are categorized as having achieved the level of redefinition when they
outperform students who are given traditional two-dimensional assignments (Kidder et al.,
2014).
Chapter Summary
Based on this review of literature, it is possible to identify components of professional
development that are helpful to teachers who are implementing technology in their classrooms.
This information can support development of more effective instructional technology
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 38
professional development in the future. Improving professional development can lead to effec-
tive implementation of technology integration.
Evidence demonstrates a need to address teachers’ beliefs regarding technology training.
Technology training can be more useful for teachers when they are provided practical application
that is meaningful to the teaching and learning process. Along with the practicality of technology
integration, providing ongoing support can change negative beliefs to more positive outcomes
for teachers and students.
Two models were reviewed in this chapter: (a) the SAMR model (Figure 1), and (b) the
TPACK model (Figure 2.). Both models contain components to measure the levels or stages of
technology integration. The components in the SAMR model are more closely aligned to this
case study and the model was the appropriate framework to utilize for this case study. This
framework identifies the differences between enhancement and transformation. The SAMR
model support this case study to explore teachers’ beliefs, the benefits realized when teachers
embrace technology, issues of access to technology, and support of technology in a specific
setting. The study was designed to determine whether similar findings are found in a setting that
has embraced technology as a typical teaching practice.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 39

Figure 1. The substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR) conceptual
framework used in this study.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 40

Figure 2. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) conceptual framework.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Since the release of California’s blueprint for technology Empowering Learning in April
2014, there has been a sense of urgency to implement technology-integrated classrooms.
Although California schools are urged to provide students with technology-integrated instruc-
tion, teachers have had difficulty in implementing innovative lessons in their classrooms
(Anthony & Clark, 2011; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). The intent of this research study was to
understand how a technology-enhanced school has successfully implemented technology so that
technology-absent schools can consider some of these successful practices. The purpose of this
study was to determine how technology is integrated in a secondary technology-rich environ-
ment.
Research Questions
Over the course of 1 year, the dissertation team at the Rossier School of Education, Uni-
versity of Southern California, studying technology integration in schools, collaborated to
develop and research questions designed to stimulate collection of vivid data and to guide their
studies. During the collaboration, research was reviewed regarding factors contributing to tech-
nology integration in the learning process. The research team identified four areas of signifi-
cance: technology-integrated instructional practices, beliefs about technology integration,
knowledge of technology-integrated pedagogical practices, and support structures that enable
integration of technology in the classroom, as identified by teachers. The studies were guided by
four research questions:
1. How do educators at School X integrate technology to support student learning?
2. To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills and the corresponding
pedagogy needed to utilize technology as a viable instructional tool?
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 42
3. In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and imple-
mentation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at School
X?
The emphasis of this study was to investigate what influences teachers to integrate tech-
nology into their teaching and learning processes. Based on the literature review, teachers’
beliefs, knowledge, and the type of support that they receive appeared to be key components of
successful technology integration in classrooms. It was important to examine these key compo-
nents in a secondary setting to address the research questions developed to elicit descriptive
information about the current practices, beliefs, knowledge, and support to which teachers have
access at the study’s target secondary school.
In this chapter, a description of the methodology utilized to conduct this study is pre-
sented. A qualitative case study methodology was utilized for the investigation. The study inves-
tigated the current practices, beliefs, knowledge, and support offered to teachers to enable and
enhance integration of technology as a part of the teaching and learning process at School X.
Research Design and Methods
A qualitative research methodology was selected for this study. A case study method was
used to gather descriptive information regarding the practices, beliefs, knowledge, and support
provided for teachers at school X (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009). To address the research
questions, the SAMR model was utilized as the structural framework. This framework structured
collection of data aligned with the model. The model included an investigation of how the teach-
ers progressed from enhancement to transformational technology-integrated lessons (Puentedura,
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 43
2013). As the main agent for data collection, the SAMR model assisted in analyzing the data
related to types of daily activities and interactions as they happened (Merriam, 2009).
The case study utilized an inductive approach. The researcher was the primary instrument
for collecting data at the site. This approach enabled collection of data to frame understanding of
current practices, beliefs, knowledge, and support for teachers in integrating technology in the
learning and teaching process at School X (Merriam, 2009). The SAMR model was the most
effective way to understand the progression of technology implementation with the use of
surveys, interviews, and observations in the natural setting (Creswell, 2014). Collecting data in
the natural setting was the most accurate method of data collection regarding how teachers at
School X integrated technology.
The data collected from multiple sources were triangulated to validate the findings
(Creswell, 2014). After review of documents for School X relevant to the study, the research
design included a survey administered to all staff members, as well as 1-hour interviews and
1-hour observations of six teachers. The limitations of this case study were the small sampling
size and the fact that the research was specific to School X; thus, findings may not be generaliz-
able to other settings (Creswell, 2014).
Four data collecting instruments were utilized. One survey and three protocols were
created for this study to ensure that specific structures were in place. The protocols ensured col-
lection of the best comparable data (Creswell, 2014). Documents were reviewed based on a
document review protocol (Appendix A) created by the dissertation team. A survey for teachers
with 22 items was created (Appendix B). A semistructured interview protocol was developed to
ensure consistency across the six interviews (Appendix C). The observation protocol (Appendix
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 44
D) was structured ensure a focus on collecting information and data related to the research ques-
tions.
Document Review
The process for reviewing documents was used to triangulate the findings related to the
research questions. The process included associating the data needs with the research questions.
The data needs were identified with specific documents to obtain information to address the
research questions. The following documents for School X were reviewed: (a) mission statement,
(b) LCAP, (c) classroom artifacts, (d) lesson plans, (e) student work samples, (f) professional
development calendar, (g) staff meeting/training agendas, (h) coaching/observation schedule, and
(i) technology plan.
Survey
The data collection process began with administration of a survey designed to gather
information about the teachers in five categories: (a) demographic information, (b) student
learning, (c) technology skills, (d) technology support, and (e) technology beliefs. The survey
was developed during several dissertation team meetings to obtain answers relevant to the
research questions.
After being introduced to the staff by the principal at a staff meeting, the researcher
shared with the teachers the nature of the study. This introduction was given to assist teachers to
gain rapport with the researcher in preparation for the interviews (Glesne, 2011).
The survey was presented at the end of staff meeting. The researcher requested that the
surveys be completed and returned to the office by the end of the week. Prior to the end of the
week, an email was sent to remind them to return the survey by the end of the week. A total of
27 of the 32 teachers responded to the survey, for a 53% completion rate.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 45
The survey contained 22 items in five categories. The survey first asked the teachers to
state the number of years of teaching experience in response categories of 0 to 5 years, 6 to 15
years, 16 to 25 years, and 26 or more years. The student learning section contained six items
regarding the extent to which their lessons were integrated with technology, with response
options of rarely or never, sometimes, most of the time, and almost always. The technology skills
section contained three items about the teachers’ technology skills, with the same response
options. The technology support section contained five items regarding the type of technology
support the teachers received, offering the same response options. The technology belief section
contained five items with response options of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly
agree.
After survey responses were collected, six teachers were selected by the researcher to
participate in an interview questions regarding their current practices, beliefs, knowledge, and
support received related to integration of technology as part of the teaching and learning process.
The teachers were selected from a list provided by the principal indicating the principal’s
assessment of who was most appropriate to provide information for the study.
Interview
The interview questions (Appendix C) were created by the dissertation team. Based on
the research questions, the interview questions were developed to stimulate descriptive responses
from the teachers. Interviews were utilized to gather information about the current practices,
beliefs, knowledge, and support related to implementing technology integration in the classroom
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009). Some of these factors could not be directly observed; there-
fore, the interview was the best method for collecting rich and descriptive data (Merriam, 2009;
Patton, 2002). The points of view of the teachers, as they responded during the interview,
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 46
provided insight on their perspectives (Patton, 2002). This approach provided the researcher
flexibility in gathering the data and analyzing the findings (Merriam, 2009).
After permission was granted, the principal named the teachers who would be best suited
to participate in interviews and observation sessions (Maxwell, 2012). The principal provided the
names of nine teachers. Email (Appendix E) was sent from the researcher to the nine teachers
identified by the principal. Six of the nine teachers responded positively. This agreement was
associated with the trust building established with the teachers during the introduction at the staff
meeting. The relationship between the respondents and the researcher was important, as the
researcher was the main agent for data collection.
The teachers who participated in the interviews and observations taught Grades 6 to 8.
The teachers were assigned numbers to ensure their anonymity. Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 taught
mathematics, Teacher 3 and Teacher 4 taught science, Teacher 5 taught history and social
science, and Teacher 6 taught English. This range of teachers was selected to collect the most
relevant information to address the research questions. These respondents were appropriate indi-
viduals to interview because they were familiar with the school, as they had been with the school
for at least 3 years (Maxwell, 2012). This is also considered a limitation and may or may not rep-
resent the school as a whole because of the small sampling.
The interview protocol included 18 questions in categories based on the research ques-
tions. Five questions related to how the teachers integrated technology. Four questions were
designed to learn about how they had acquired their technology knowledge and skill. The next
four questions were related to the research question that pertained to support provided to the
teachers for technology implementation. The remaining five questions focused on the research
questions related to the teachers’ beliefs about technology integration.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 47
The interview protocol (Appendix C) was designed to obtain data to address the research
questions. The interview protocol included a script to introduce the researcher as a student at the
University of Southern California and the purpose of the study. The duration of the interview and
the fact that it was semistructured with the option to include clarifying questions, was also
explained. The interviews were conducted in the classrooms of the interviewees.
Once the interviewees were made aware of the nature of the case study, the protocol
included obtaining permission (Appendix F) to tape record the interview (Creswell, 2014). The
interviewees were also made aware that their participation was voluntary and that, at any time
that wanted to stop, take a break, or return to a specific question, they could do so simply by
informing the researcher time. Also, they were given notification that they could withdraw from
participation at any time during the interview without penalty. The protocol included written
consent from the participants and addressing questions prior to beginning the interview (Glesne,
2011).
The interviews were conducted in a semistructured format, which allowed for follow-up
questions for clarification purposes. The interview questions included a general question that
allowed the teachers to offer other information at the end of each segment. The protocol utilized
simple questions at the beginning, with transitions among various types of questions as a tool to
allow respondents to open up (Merriam, 2009). The transition statements also assisted the par-
ticipants to shift to a different set of questions.
The interviews ranged from 50 minutes to 60 minutes in length; interviewees were
allowed to speak the majority of the time. Interjections served only to probe or present a follow-
up question for clarification or extract examples. The flexibility in the protocol allowed for
detailed and descriptive data to be gathered (Merriam, 2009). The follow-up questions were not
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 48
scripted but were dependent on how the teachers had answered the primary questions. The
follow-up questions were intended to gather richer data. At the end of the interview, a thank you
was accompanied by a small token of appreciation: a $5 gift card to Starbucks.
The data were transcribed immediately following the conclusion of the interview (Mer-
riam, 2009). The transcriptions and notes from the interviews were reviewed within 48 hours.
Analysis of the data began promptly in order to prepare for the observations. This process
assisted with preparation to triangulate findings to improve the validity of the data collected.
Observation
Observations were another primary source of rich and descriptive data (Merriam, 2009).
The observations provided data that could not be captured in an interview. This method of data
collection also provided an opportunity to understand the context of the phenomena under study
(Merriam, 2009). The observations allowed the issue of technology integration in the teachers’
natural setting to address the study’s research questions. The researcher collected data on the
behaviors of the participants in their natural setting. The researcher limited participation to
observation and did not participate (Merriam, 2009). The observation instrument, like the other
research instruments utilized in the study, was created by the dissertation team members. The
data collected from these observations were transcribed within 24 hours of the observations and
used to triangulate information from the document review and the interviews (Maxwell, 2012).
The form for the observation protocol (Appendix D) began with demographic infor-
mation about the teacher. The next section contained a rating scale with boxes for rating
observed activities (Merriam, 2009). The next section contained space to identify the
demographics of the class under observation and to record times, a diagram, and other infor-
mation pertinent to the research questions. This section provided space for the researcher to
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 49
record specific interactions, a description of the physical setting, and a time stamp every 5
minutes during the observation (Merriam, 2009). During each observation, a laptop was utilized
to collect data and take photos of the setting.
This study included observations of the six teachers who participated in interviews. Col-
lecting data through observations with the teachers in their natural setting assisted in under-
standing the context in which they worked. Some topics that were not covered during the
interviews were observed through this process.
The observations took place in the teachers’ classrooms at times that were convenient for
them and would best fit the needs of the study. The observation time was scheduled so that the
observation would not be disruptive to participants. Each observation was conducted for an
entire class period, approximately 45 minutes. Although the observations reflected real-life expe-
rience of the teachers, the process was limited to a single observation for each teacher.
Photos of the physical classroom layout were taken during the observations. The
researcher reviewed the research questions before and during the observations to ensure that the
collected data addressed the questions. The researcher functioned strictly as an observer and did
not interact with the participants in any way. After the observation, notes were immediately
reviewed and then transcribed to ensure the most accurate and specific data from the observa-
tions. Transcribing immediately improved the reliability of the data (Merriam, 2009).
Sampling
NMS was purposefully selected as the target school for this study because the site met the
criteria established by the dissertation team. According to reports from the school, it was actively
implementing technology-integrated classrooms, as indicated in the principal’s message posted
on the school’s website. NMS, a public K-12 school, serves approximately 925 middle school
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 50
students from a suburb in southern California. The student population includes 19.9% who are
identified as low income; 59.8% of the students are White, 28.5% are Hispanic, and 4.2% are
identified as English Language Learners. The 903 API score for 2013 indicated achievement
above-average achievement levels. This specific setting was chosen to understand how the
school had successfully implemented technology integration (Maxwell, 2012).
Based on the document review, the school site had established itself as a technology-rich
educational setting (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). The criteria met by the school site, were as
follows: (a) part of a K–12 system; (b) actively implementing technology; (c) vision, mission,
school intro, or principal’s message with technology as a focus; (d) outperforming similar
schools; (e) no enrollment criteria but considered diverse with a large low-income student popu-
lation; and (f) a public school, including magnet or charter schools.
Access/Entry
The process for obtaining access and permission to conduct the case study began with a
discussion with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services. After receiving permission
to proceed with the case study, an appointment was scheduled with the site principal to gain
access to the school site and teachers (Glesne, 2011). The site principal was very cooperative and
provided access to the teachers by identifying those who would be most suitable for the study.
Confidentiality was discussed with the principal, who was assured that the school site and names
of all participant individuals would remain confidential.
This school was implementing technology as identified in their mission and vision state-
ment. The principal’s message was also an indicator that the site was a technology-rich school
site. The principal introduced the researcher to the teachers at a staff meeting. The purpose of the
study was presented to the staff to reduce any possible anxiety on their part.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 51
Data Collection Approach
The data collection approach began after the survey responses had been collected. Then
the data from the first interview was transcribed to begin reviewing how the data related to the
research questions. The information from each of the interviews was used to begin the validating
process in preparation for observations. The responses to the survey and interviews were utilized
in the triangulation process (Merriam, 2009) so the emerging data would be rich and descriptive
(Maxwell, 2012). This process of reviewing the research questions and triangulation allowed for
the data collection to be specific but not too narrow, which allowed for other emergent findings
(Creswell, 2014). To ensure a comprehensive triangulation of the data, a matrix was constructed
by the dissertation group.
Data Analysis
Items that were pertinent to the research questions after coding, organizing, and cate-
gorizing were merged into themes to address the research questions. The first step was to narrow
the data collection to items that would address the research questions (Merriam, 2009). The
second step was to interpret the insight gathered from the interviews to assist with observations.
This targeted specific activities and supports identified in each interview for the purpose of tri-
angulation during the observations (Corbin & Strauss, 2006; Merriam, 2009).
Creditability and Trustworthiness
To increase the creditability and validity of this case study, the researcher used the tri-
angulation strategy (Merriam, 2009) with three specific methods. The first method was to iden-
tify the various perspectives of the six site teachers who were interviewed (Merriam, 2009).
These teachers had taught for 5 years or more at School X. The second method included obser-
vations conducted after the interviews and the survey to validate findings from the interviews
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 52
(Merriam, 2009). The third step was to transcribe the collected data to increase the reliability of
the data.
Ethics
Approaches were taken to ensure that this case study was conducted ethically through the
design of the methods (Maxwell, 2013). The methods included asking permission of the site
principal to gain access to the teachers. Identified teachers were given the option to not partici-
pate without penalty. Consent forms stipulated that identities would not be revealed. Participants
were informed that information from the survey, interviews, and observations would be housed
in a password-protected virtual cloud and safely stored on a password-protected device (Glesne,
2011). The methods included the survey, interviews, and observations. Following the protocols
guided learning from the teachers’ perspectives while maintaining an appropriate relationship
with the teachers (Maxwell, 2012).
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 53
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of technology in a K–12 educational
setting that can be transformational with student learning. This chapter presents the findings of a
mixed-methods study that examined technology integration practices at a middle school located
in southern California and known for its technology integration. The practices studied in this
investigation were the school’s instructional integration, knowledge, support, and belief about
the importance of technology integration as it relates to teaching and learning. These qualitative
findings were based on data collected via interviews, observations, document review, and a
quantitative teacher survey. The data were organized, analyzed, and interpreted to address the
research questions. Several themes emerged from triangulation of the data.
Description of the Case Study School
The middle school selected for the study (NMS) was chosen because the site staff self-
identified the school as one that integrates technology throughout the entire school. The school
site is located in north Orange County, California, in a suburban neighborhood; it is part of a
large public school district. NMS serves approximately 925 middle school students; 59.8% are
White and 28.5% are Hispanic, representing the majority of the student population. NMS would
not be considered to reflect the diverse population of most middle schools in California; how-
ever, 19.9% of its student are from low-income families.
On the researcher’s first visit, the principal greeted the researcher. The researcher noted
that the school grounds were well maintained. When the bell rang, the students moved smoothly
to the beginning of their school day.
The inclusive use of technology, which was the focus of this case study, was clearly evi-
dent. Students were observed with iPads during class, nutrition, lunch, and before and after
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 54
school. Similarly, during observations, teachers utilized technology in their classrooms to engage
students. Teachers even assigned homework via the online learning management system. A
culture of technology integration was clearly the foundation of the intended initiative proposed
by the district and site leadership. The researcher concluded that, without embracing technology
as a part of the school culture, the intended technology integration would have been a struggle.
Description of Data Collection Methods
As this case study utilized a mixed-methods approach, both qualitative and quantitative
data were collected and triangulated. This method allowed for triangulation of data sources. A
22- item paper-and-pencil survey (Appendix B) with items organized by the four research
questions was distributed at a staff meeting and completed by 17 NMS teachers. The survey
resulted in a 53% participation rate. generated the quantitative data. Qualitative data were
collected via the protocols for document reviews (Appendix A), interviews (Appendix E), and
observations (Appendix F). The dissertation research cohort developed these protocols, as
described in the previous chapter.
Data collection included document review, surveying the teachers, interviewing instruc-
tional staff, and observations of classrooms and professional development sessions. During the
six site visits, the researcher conducted interviews and observations and administered the
surveys. Gathering of information on the school’s profile, classroom artifacts, lesson plans, staff
meeting agendas, technology plan, and professional development calendar occurred as a part of
the document review. Table 1 shows the persons who participated in the interviews, their posi-
tions, and the length of the interview. Seven interviews were conducted in 6 days. The interviews
were conducted with three teachers, one digital learning coach, one principal, one assistant prin-
cipal, and one assistant superintendent.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 55
Table 1

Interviews

Participant Position Subject Length (minutes)

Participant 1 Administrator Administrative Services 44
Participant 2 Administrator Instruction 63
Participant 3 Administrator Instruction 42
Participant 4 Teacher Core 37
Participant 5 Teacher Core 37
Participant 6 Teacher Elective 52
Participant 7 Instructional Coach All 51

The researcher followed the prescribed protocol for each interview. An audio recording
was made with the signed consent of each interviewee. The audio recordings were transcribed
within 48 hours after each interview.
Observations were conducted in four classrooms, one professional development session,
one staff meeting, and two one-to-one digital learning coaching sessions. The administrative
team purposefully identified teachers for observations to ensure that observations involved
teachers who were currently integrating technology in their lessons to gather rich and detailed
qualitative data relevant to the study. Table 2 lists the setting, topic, and participants, and the
length of observations that took place at NMS.
The researcher followed the prescribed protocols for each observation. During each
observation, the researcher collected information by taking relevant and detailed notes. The
researcher did not engage as a participant. The notes from the observations were transcribed
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 56
Table 2

Observations

Setting Topic Participants Length (minutes)

Media Center Pear Deck training Coaches and teachers 45
Classroom Google Docs Teacher and students 57
Classroom Project Leads the Way Teacher and students 57
Classroom Sketchboard Teacher and students 57
Classroom Google Classroom Teacher and students 57
Staff Meeting Best Practices w/Technology Administrators, teachers, coaches 45
Coaching Cycle Haiku Coach and teacher 35
Coaching Cycle Touchcast Coach, teacher, and students 35

within 48 hours following the observations. The observations were conducted over 6 days. The
information from the document analysis and surveys assisted in identifying specifics in the
observations.
Analysis
To interpret the data collected from the documents, the survey results and the transcrip-
tions and notes from the seven interviews and eight observations, the analysis process began
soon after collection of data. The data from the document analysis, survey, interviews, and
observations enabled accurate triangulation of the collected data.
Transcription of the observation notes assisted with the interviews so that the researcher
could ask follow-up and probing questions to gather rich descriptive data. This protocol ensured
collection of the best comparable data (Creswell, 2014). Continuous data analysis took place.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 57
The research questions guided the analysis process. Data were coded to assist by organizing and
categorizing the data into possible themes.
Research Questions
The outcomes of the analysis of this case study were organized based on the four research
questions. These research questions focused on four specific areas of study: instructional inte-
gration, knowledge, support, and belief. This case study was guided by the following four
research questions:
1. How do educators at NMS integrate technology to support student learning?
2. To what factors do educators at NMS attribute their knowledge of instructional tech-
nology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at NMS provided support for technology integration and
implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at NMS?
The intent of the research questions was to examine details of the support, teachers’ beliefs, and
how technology integration occurred to enhance student learning at NMS.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do educators at NMS integrate technology to support
students learning?” Related findings are reported in this section in two focal areas: (a) technol-
ogy access, and (b) technology integration practices.
Several survey items addressed included how technology had been integrated into the
classroom as a tool to support student learning at NMS. The responses to the survey are shown in
Table 3.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 58
Table 3

Survey Results for Research Question 1

Rarely Most of Almost
Survey statement or never Sometimes the time always

2. My instruction involves use of
technology.

1 4 6 6

0.0% 23.5% 35.3% 35.3%
3. My lessons encourage creativity and
innovation through student use of
technology.

1 11 4 1

5.9% 64.7% 23.5% 5.9%
4. My lessons embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem-
solving through student use of
technology

2 9 6 0

11.8% 52.9% 35.3% 0.0%
5. My lessons embed student use of
technology in the classroom.

1 5 9 2

5.9% 29.4% 52.9% 11.8%
6. My lessons embed student use of
technology outside of the classroom.

0 5 7 5

0.0% 29.4% 41.2% 29.4%
7. Students are encouraged to work
collaboratively with other students while
using technology.

2 6 8 1

11.8% 35.3% 47.1% 5.9%
8. Professional development (PD) sessions
have improved my use of technology in
the classroom.

1 5 9 2

5.9% 29.4% 52.9% 11.8%
9. I use technology to differentiate
instruction.

0 10 6 1

0.0% 58.8% 35.3% 5.9%

Technology access. The school site initiated their one-to-one device program 2 years
ago. Implementation was difficult because the teachers were given too many apps as options.
Now, at the beginning of the 3rd year, the staff members report more focus on which apps will
receive support. This allows the teachers to access and focus on one technology feature at a time
and delivery mode in the classroom. The main app used by the staff is called Pear Deck™, an
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 59
interactive slide presentation software that allows teachers to control what the students screen
while giving the teacher an opportunity to collect formative data virtually.
The devices offered to all students and teachers at NMS are Internet-ready iPads. The
district-sponsored and school-sponsored apps are made available to teachers and students. Based
on interviews, observations, and document reviews, it was also learned that each classroom had a
teacher’s microphone, speakers, document camera, document scanner, wireless Internet access,
and SMART boards. Both interviews and observations indicated that the teachers utilized these
classroom technology tools on a regular basis. Figure 3 indicates the type of technology made
available to teachers and students to support learning through the use of technology.
Internet/Wifi, 1 to 1 iPads students, iPads for teachers, Google Tools, Padlet, Youtube,
Video-edit, Turnitin.com, Pear Deck, Pictorcharts, short films, Powtoons, Airplay, 24/7
Internet access, Touchcast, computer lab, learning Aps, Storyboard, iCell, e-Folders, e-port-
folio, Desmo, wireless microphone system in classroom, grade camera, document camera,
LCD Projectors, Front Row, Newsela, Aeries, Kahoot, Apps, Nearpod
Figure 3. Available technology for Focus Area 1 (Access) for Research Question 1.

As shown in Table 3, the majority of the teachers do not embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem solving through student use of the technology; however,
the majority of the lessons are likely to include student use of technology inside and outside the
classroom. Also, 64.7% of the teachers reported that their lessons sometimes encourage creativ-
ity and innovation through student use of technology, the majority reported that professional
development sessions were made available and improved their use of technology in the
classroom.
Interviews indicated that there is access to technological devices, apps, and equipment for
teachers to utilize as a method of integrating technology in each lesson. With the variety of apps
available to teachers and students, teachers report a sense of autonomy with the type of
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 60
technology that they integrate in their lessons. Interviews indicated that teachers did not feel
married to a specific app or program. The interviews also indicated that the teachers assigned
students homework that required that they use an app on the iPad or required the students to
submit a product digitally because they had access to the technology to complete the task.
Teachers also provided students an online “how to submit” document to assist with assignment
submission.
Teachers and students frequently utilized technology as part of their daily routine.
Students were accustomed to technology use in classroom instruction. During an observation the
students in a computer lab were engaged with Google tools to create a document with the use of
Google Docs and saving the document on Google Drive. Students saved their work on Google
Drive so that they could access it from home on their iPads. In another observations students
were utilizing their iPads to access a Google form that their teacher had launched in Google
Classroom. During this observation the teacher was circulating around the classroom with an
iPad.
Technology-integrated practices. The survey data indicated that 70.6% of the NMS
teachers utilized some type of technology in classroom instruction most of the time or almost
always. Also, 64.7% of the NMS teachers’ embedded student use of technology and 70.6% of
the students’ embedded technology use occurred outside of the classroom most of the time or
almost always. These results are consistent with the observations of students utilizing iPads
before and after school, as well as during breaks and lunch time. Technology appears to be a
normal part of the classroom routine; however, the educators at NMS indicated that technology
is only a tool for learning and that there must be a purpose for its use. One teacher commented,
“It’s not about the technology, it’s about the content.” This is consistent with the remarks made
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 61
by two administrators who commented, “This is a learning initiative” as they noted that the
district had acquired a bond in 2011 specifically for technology. The instruction of the content is
the key component that was emphasized and technology was another means to engage the
students in the content.
Figure 4 indicates the current teacher practices utilized to support student learning
through the use of technology.
Haiku Site learning management platform, flipped classroom, online discussions, per-
formance tasks, Wikiboard to justify and design own flipped lesson, classroom response,
immediate explicit feedback, student self-reflecting, teacher expectation of technology use,
justifying answers, monitor student learning, responsive feedback to correct any misconcep-
tions, gather student responses to gauge learning, differentiation of lesson, change lexile
levels, work submission
Figure 4. Available technology practices for Focus Area 2 (Practices) for Research Question 1.

Interviews, observations, and document reviews indicated that teachers utilized Haiku as
the school site’s learning management platform to provide information and resources to students
and an assignment submission platform. During one of the observations a teacher utilized this
learning tool to upload a PowerPoint
®
presentation for the students to watch at home in prepara-
tion for a classroom activity. With the “flipped classroom” approach, the teachers utilize the time
during the class to facilitate group discussions and activities. During this time the teacher moni-
tors the students justifying their answers as they are submitted. One teacher shared specifically
how to respond to students with technology:
Kids can submit multiple things, so if they have multiple pictures or they have a docu-
ment had a picture that they want to submit, they can do that under one assignment. I can
see three attachments under a single assignment, look at all three immediately, put a
grade over there on the side and give them a comment. They get immediate response
from me, they know what they’re doing wrong and because it works so closely with
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 62
Google, I can go in and make a comment within the document itself and say, you’re not
capitalizing, you need to elaborate on this idea, or something. They can read those com-
ments, make the changes and resubmit it to me.
The teachers utilized the devices and technology to acquire responses from students to
monitor their learning. At NMS, the teachers utilize Google forms to elicit responses from
students on their iPads. The learning takes place by providing every student an opportunity to
respond. Submission of responses and assignments provides an opportunity for teachers to
provide immediate explicit feedback to students. According to the teachers, this platform for
responses allows students to have a safe place to express thoughts. During an interview, a teacher
commented, “Kids can give their answer without feeling bad if the student is wrong.”
Students were observed collaborating in each observed classroom. In one of the classes,
the students were working together to respond to the teacher’s set of questions. Responses were
required from each student; however, submission was completed through Pear Deck™. The
other classroom had the students contribute their responses by utilizing a link to Google Forms
after a discussion about what they had read.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “What factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills
and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?” Two areas of focus supported find-
ings for this question: (a) professional development, and (b) coaching.
Several survey items address technology as an instructional tool and factors to which
educators attribute their knowledge of skills and pedagogy at NMS. The results of the survey
responses are shown in Table 4.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 63
Table 4

Survey Results for Research Question 2

Rarely Most of Almost
Survey statement or never Sometimes the time always

10. I use technology daily in a variety of
ways to present lessons.

2 5 7 3

11.8% 29.4% 41.2% 17.6%
11. I use technology in a variety of ways
to assess student learning.

0 9 6 2

0.0% 52.9% 35.3% 11.8%
12. I go out of my way to stay current on
the new innovations with technology.

0 8 7 2

0.0% 47.1% 41.2% 11.8%

The results of the survey indicated that technology is utilized 58.8% of the time in daily
lessons and 47.1% of the time to assess student learning most of the time or almost always. The
teachers also indicated that 53% of them go out of their way to stay current on innovations in
technology at least most of the time. In general, the teachers reported that they were comfortable
with the use of technology. Also, during observations, teachers appeared comfortable in utilizing
technology in the classrooms, during lessons, professional development, and staff meetings.
Professional development. As it relates to instruction, the teachers reported that they
learn about technology as an instructional tool from various arenas. The professional develop-
ment structure utilizes components of technology integration. These technology integration pro-
fessional development sessions are also offered at various levels. Teachers are sent to training for
professional development. One teacher shared her views of the training:
We had actually gone to a staff training my very first day in the district, and one of the
teachers showed us, and I did not realize that was the same thing. He had given us a
whole day, and I was like this is amazing. It was space and flight, and we used NASA
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 64
software, which was really cool. They stopped using it in the curriculum now, and I wish
they would not have, because I really like it. Anyway we used NASA software to design
an airplane and then we made an airfoil, and tested the airfoil, and we were able to see
how drag and lift were affected by the sides of an airfoil. It was two weeks. I went to San
Jose for one week and San Diego for one week. We stayed in dorms, which was fun.
There are also district-led professional development and training sessions, referred to as
the summer institute. These institutes have an attendance rate of approximately 95% of all teach-
ers. A member of the leadership team at the district office stated the following:
We also hold a summer institute in the summer. It’s a summer institute. We pay teachers
to come for three days. That’s their way of working with their specific area. First grade
teachers all meet together. All high school math teachers meet together. Everybody in
their subject area specifically meet together and our digital learning coaches lead many of
those sessions. Again, we are able to take our expertise from our coaches in the summer
and they naturally embed that technology within the curriculum and then they are sharing
that with all the teachers.
School site professional development and training is another factor identified as contrib-
uting to the knowledge and skill of the educators at NMS to utilize technology as an instructional
tool to engage students in learning. Opportunities for teachers to learn from peers occurs during
monthly staff meetings and professional development sessions. Teachers are given the oppor-
tunity to present how they are able to integrate technology into their lessons to engage students in
learning content. In one observed staff meetings, time was earmarked to have three teachers from
three content areas share their use of a specific tool called Pear Deck. During the observation,
one of the presenting teachers stated to the staff,
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 65
There are no right or wrong answers, this is more for conversation for students to have
and participate in. There are no names published for the students but I can always know
who is saying what with this program.
The teacher emphasized the focal point of capturing student responses to monitor collaboration
by students and ensure that each student contributed. The teacher identified Pear Deck as the
management tool for this monitoring of student responses and collaboration.
Coaching. In 2011 a bond for 135 million dollars was passed for the learning initiative
for use of technology. The purpose of the bond was specifically for technology upgrades and
improving instruction with the use of technology. With the bond, the district decided to hire
Digital Learning Coaches (DLC). The 15 DLCs were assigned to school sites. The DLC program
offered direct assistance to teachers at the school sites; the teachers who receive this assistance
are referred to as fellows. The teachers apply each year to become a fellow and, once selected,
agreed to assist other teachers at their school site to improve the use of technology to improve
learning. One of the teachers spoke about assistance received from the DLC program:
Just having a digital coach being able to be there for you whenever, having IT people
there to help you when things break. They also send around emails with YouTube videos
on how to. For instance, one of them taught me how to take my two emails forward it to
our main email address through the how to video. Little things like that, or how to use
this, or how to use that. They will show, they will give you like little YouTube videos.
The DLC at NMS referred to the DLCs as iCoaches and described their role:
Really, my focus as an iCoach is to all teachers, not just my fellows, but even all teachers
onsite is that purposeful use of technology and anytime I teach them something new, we
look at the why. Why is it that you want to build a lesson in haiku? Or why is it that you
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 66
want to use this touch cast? The idea that they were, when they go to watch these and it
looks like they’re in that internment camp will bring to life the words that they’re saying
and does their facial expressions match the seriousness of the words they’re using? She’ll
be able to go back and teach into the video, it’s not just the video process, but it’s what
she gets to do with it and so every one of my sessions with them is “Why, what’s your
standard or what’s your overarching theme? What’s your essential question? What do
you want students to learn?”
During observation of the coaching cycle, the DLC was working directly with a fellow
and a former fellow, referred to as an alumni. The alumni was sharing with the DLC the intent of
the lesson and what she wanted the students to learn. The DLC provided hands-on support on
how to place images onto Haiku for students to access and respond to. The DLC also coached the
fellow to complete the steps independently to ensure that the fellow could apply the same steps
in the future. Before leaving, the DLC and fellow confirmed the next week’s follow-up as part of
their coaching cycle. These factors were corroborated based on data from observations, inter-
views, and 87% of survey results that stated that there is a mentor to support technology integra-
tion.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “In what ways are educators provided support for technology
integration and implementation?” Two areas of focus supported the findings for this question: (a)
site leadership, and (b) district leadership.
Several survey items reported support provided to educators for integrating technology as
an instructional tool at NMS. The responses from the survey are summarized in Table 5.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 67
Table 5

Survey Results for Research Question 3

Rarely Most of Almost
Survey statement or never Sometimes the time always

13.Use of technology is encouraged and
promoted at my school.

0 0 1 16

0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 94.1%
14. IT support staff is available to assist
when needed.

0 3 7 7

0.0% 17.6% 41.2% 41.2%
15. A mentor is available to support
technology integration.

0 1 6 10

0.0% 5.9% 35.3% 58.8%
16. Use of instructional technology is a
component of my school’s culture.

0 0 2 15

0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2%
17. Teachers are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional
technology.

0 2 4 11

0.0% 11.8% 23.5% 64.7%

The above survey results revealed that 94.1% of the teachers reported that the school
almost always encouraged and promoted the use of technology at NMS. The teachers identified
educators utilizing instructional technology as a component of the school’s culture (88.2%).
Also, 64.7% of the teachers were almost always provided hands-on opportunities to learn
instructional technology.
Site leadership. The site leadership has been contributing support for technology inte-
gration by providing resources to utilize specific programs or apps. Site administration takes
suggestions for apps from teachers and ensures that the apps are purchased for the teacher to
utilize in the classroom. Also, teachers are given iTune gift cards as part of their district’s part-
nership with a foundation. The foundation provides bulk purchases based on administration
suggested apps. The teachers confirmed that they receive funds to purchase apps for use in the
classroom. One teacher said,
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 68
They give us money to buy apps, which is wonderful. If we want an app, we can put it on
a list and they will push it out to the district app store. I think they have made this a lot
easier because you hear stories of kids jail-breaking their iPads, like in LA, and kids
ruining them in the first day or whatever. I feel like they have helped us by giving us a
district app store.
The leadership supports collaboration on technology use by the staff by providing
opportunities for teachers to work together. The time provided to teachers is offered in the form
of substitute teachers covering classes to allow teachers to observe other teachers utilizing tech-
nology in the teaching and learning process. Teachers are also supported to learn instructional
technology through hands-on opportunities to learn the technology. One teacher shared in the
interview,
I was a DLC a couple of years ago, where I was out training teachers on how to integrate
the technology into their curriculum, so I had my own class in the morning because I
couldn’t not have a class. I would have died without my class. I was able to go in and
help other teachers, and so I learned a lot that way too because I would go and tinker, and
I would try it out on my kids. Then I would take it to the other teachers and help them
implement it. I’ve really done a lot of training on my own because I did a Haiku begin-
ners class and I just started clicking on stuff. I don’t think I took another class after the
beginners one and I figured it all out.
District leadership. The staff reported that the district leadership has supported them by
providing resources to implement the technology in the teaching and learning process. When the
technology initiative was first implemented in the district, a long list of apps was provided to the
teachers. This was ineffective when classroom walk-throughs showed the absence of technology
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 69
integration. The district leadership decided to have a shorter list of apps offered to the teachers
and repurposed the DLCs to become experts on these specific apps. For example, the app that
NMS launched this year is Pear Deck. The site DLC became the experts on how to integrate it in
instruction. The DLC works directly with the fellows to integrate Pear Deck into lessons and
implement lessons with use of this technology in the classroom. Although the district does not
limit technology integration to specific apps, the district leadership ensured there was more focus
and that the app that was utilized was purposeful in ensuring learning outcomes from its use.
This coaching model helped the DLCs and their fellows to build capacity in the teachers at NMS.
Some teachers taught other teachers about the features of Pear Deck and other apps. One admin-
istrator from the district office remarked,
We’ve got 2 years with the fellows and we want them to continue growing and changing
and the way we think that’s best is by having them sharing ideas. We lead those. We also
have what we call the tech extravaganza and we have that in the spring. It’s a mini Cue
conference. So if you’ve ever been in the Cue conference there are a hundred sessions
and you can choose what is best suited for you. We offer that as well. That turned out to
be what we did for two years now. It’s turned out to be huge. Then we are developing
capacity because really the coaching model is supposed to develop not only their fellows,
but then have the fellows be sharing at staff meetings, and be part of the leadership for
that school.
This statement was consistent with the current purchasing practices at NMS identified by the
administration.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 70
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “What are educators’ beliefs about technology and imple-
mentation at NMS?” One area of focus supported the findings for this question: the belief that
technology integration has a positive impact on student learning.
Several survey items addressed educators’ beliefs about technology and implementation
at NMS. The responses to the survey are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6

Survey Results for Research Question 4

Strongly Strongly
Survey statement disagree Disagree Agree agree

18. I support the use of technology in the
classroom.

0 0 9 8

0.0% 0.0% 52.9% 47.1%
19. Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning.

0 0 9 8

0.0% 0.0% 52.9% 47.1%
20.Technology is an important part of
teaching and learning.

0 0 11 6

0.0% 0.0% 64.7% 35.3%
21. My classroom is student-centered.

0 1 10 6
0.0% 5.9% 58.8% 35.3%
22. My students are empowered to be
responsible for their own learning.

0 0 10 7

0.0% 0.0% 58.8% 41.2%

Overall, the survey results indicated that 100% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed
that they support the use of technology in the classroom, that instructional technology has a
positive impact on student learning, that technology is an important part of teaching and learning,
and that students are empowered to be responsible for their own learning. Based on the survey
results, 94.1% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their classroom was student cen-
tered. The teachers reported that they consistently integrate the technology into their daily
lessons. Haiku learning management system is utilized daily. The teachers identified this as a
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 71
crucial part of their technology integration. This learning management system provides students
resources and assists both students and teacher with organization of assignments, resources, and
submissions. Students access the materials from class at any time, which offers students oppor-
tunities to complete work at home when necessary.
Another positive impact identified by the teachers was the ability to offer links to lessons
and instruction, as well as to PowerPoint presentations. This ability offers teachers an oppor-
tunity to “flip” the classroom to facilitate classroom discussions the following day. The teachers
agreed that these activities enhance learning outcomes. The flipped lesson provides more time
during class to monitor learning and to intervene when a student does not understand the content.
During an observation in a classroom, the teacher had the link to the lesson uploaded for the
students to revisit if they needed to review the steps that they should take; class time was utilized
to follow the steps provided in the uploaded video. While the students were following the steps
and collaborating, the teacher supported student learning by guiding the students to complete the
task that had been assigned at the beginning of class.
The administrators agreed that the use of technology enhances student learning. This
belief was demonstrated by the launch of a particular technology-based tool: Pear Deck. The
principal invested in the purchase of the program and included upgrades for each teacher. Pear
Deck was launched this year. The fellows at NMS agreed that utilizing this newly launched
component had positively affective student learning. During the observed staff meeting, the
fellows highlighted this interactive and engaging presentation tool as a way to gather formative
information on student learning. The fellows indicated specifically that they saw student
engagement improved, could provide instant feedback, and collected formative data. One fellow
stated,
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 72
I use this to review the geography by having the students click and drag on the map.
Right away I can check for understanding. Then I ask the students how many oceans and
then have them spell them out. It is a review that publishes their responses, the students
are engaged, I get responses, give instant feedback, and collect the data to move on or re-
teach.
The DLCs collected professional development input from the staff and the administration
provided time for professional development during one of the late start Wednesdays at NMS.
The professional development session offered training on a couple of technology integration
options, including Pear Deck. The training included an additional DLC to provide one-on-one
assistance for learning how to utilize Pear Deck. The fellows were also observed assisting other
teachers with the use of Pear Deck.
During the observed training session, the DLC focused specifically on a feature of Pear
Deck that allows the teacher to see all responses from students prior to displaying the answers to
assist with response management while checking for understanding of the content. The collection
and use of formative assessments to assist teachers to make decisions on how to address stu-
dents’ learning needs via Pear Deck was emphasized. There was no apparent frustration in the
teachers when learning about this new technology resource. The teachers freely asked questions.
The coaches also identified a session to be offered in the near future for Pear Deck. They referred
to this session as “Just One Thing” or JOT. This was a part of the site’s plan to support technol-
ogy integration continuously to support student learning.
Discussion of Themes and Findings
Five major themes emerged from the findings, guided by the research questions and tri-
angulated to support the learning initiative with the use of technology at NMS: (a) purposeful
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 73
and specified professional development and teacher training technology integration, (b) compre-
hensive access to technology for students and teachers to implement technology integration, (c)
district and site-level leadership to support daily technology integration, (d) instructional prac-
tices applied through the lens of the SAMR Model and the TPACK framework, and (e) teacher
collaboration and teachers learning from teachers.
Purposeful Professional Development and Teacher Training
The first theme, based on observations, interviews, and document review, was purposeful
professional development and teacher training. Offering professional development and training
for teachers is an essential component for implementation of technology in the classroom.
Throughout the year, there are numerous of opportunities for the teachers to attend professional
development or training. These professional opportunities are specific in developing the teach-
ers’ ability to engage students in collaboration and providing instantaneous feedback to students
regarding their responses. These sessions offer teachers suggestions on how to integrate technol-
ogy into lessons based on grade level and content areas so that time is more purposeful toward
what attendees are teaching.
These opportunities are in the form of professional development and training sessions
held at an off-site location, at the district office, or at the school site and at various times. NMS
offers various levels of professional development and training before, after, and during school
during the summer and sometimes on weekends. This menu provides teachers alternatives to
align with their schedules. This teacher-led professional development plays a significant role in
implementing a learning initiative that includes use of technology.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 74
Comprehensive Access to Technology
There was a wide range of access to technology devices and software at HMS. Access-
ibility to technology devices and programs appeared to be a vital component of technology inte-
gration. Without access of technology it would have been difficult to implement a schoolwide
instructional initiative on use of technology. Three years ago, the district benefited from a bond
measure that resulted in a 135 million-dollar learning initiative for all stakeholders. This bond
measure was initiated specifically for upgrading the technology infrastructure and enhancing
student learning through technology integration in the classroom.
The funding support from the district and the community contributed to the smooth
implementation of this initiative. The infrastructure enhancements included wifi upgrades, spe-
cific hardware in each classroom, and one-to-one devices for students and teachers. The district
also adopted a learning management system, purchased software, offered training to integrate
technology, and hired DLCs to provide onsite support for teachers. These items are all critical
components to implement a schoolwide technology-enhanced learning initiative. Implementation
of the technology integration at NMS would have been extremely difficult in the absence of any
of these components.
District and Site-Level Support
District- and site-level support was evident in observations, interviews, and document
review The district provided support to teachers to integrate technology in student learning
through summer institutes. These institutes were technology focused professional development
sessions for teachers by grade level or content area. This specified professional development
offered technology integration training to align and apply what was learned directly into the
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 75
classroom. These summer institutes have trained approximately 50% (about 450) of the teachers
in the past 2 years.
Another district level-support was hiring the DLCs. This program, identified by teachers
and administrators, had a significant impact on the daily classroom technology integration. The
DLC program was designed to connect learning coaches with fellows at grade or content levels
to meet on a weekly basis. The instructional support focuses on enhancing lessons with technol-
ogy integration. They meet to plan lessons and specific strategies to support learning. The DLC
assists to identify what technology best supports the strategy and assists with the lesson imple-
mentation in the classroom. According to the teacher interviews and observations, this specified
one-on-one coaching model has built teachers’ skills and confidence to implement technology
integration to enhance learning.
Site administration provides support to assist with integrating technology in the class-
rooms in a variety of ways. One of the ways in which site administration has been supportive
was earmarking site funds for technology. These funds are specifically allocated to purchase
technological equipment, such as covers to safeguard iPads utilized by staff and students.
Another site administration contribution was purchasing apps for teachers to implement in class-
rooms, such as Pear Deck. These apps and other software requested by teachers were purchased
for teacher and student use.
The site administrators support technology integration implementation by strategically
making commitments to focus on technology implementation. Such commitments include offer-
ing teachers several opportunities to learn about instructional technology during the late start
schedule. The late start schedule provides time earmarked for staff meetings. In these staff
meetings, fellows share their best practices in technology integration. They focus on
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 76
collaboration by students and collection of formative data. Also, NMS administration offers
teachers the opportunity to observe other teachers by providing class coverage. The overall
support from both district and site-level administration has been key in creating a technology-
rich learning environment.
Applying Instructional Practices With the SAMR Model and the TPACK Framework
The next theme referred to applying instructional practices at NMS. This study was
framed with the application of two conceptual frameworks for study of the impact of integration
of technology on student learning. The SAMR model developed by Puentedura (2013) was
applied to study how technology was utilized at NMS. The TPACK theoretical framework
(Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, van Braak, & Voogt, 2013) was applied to study the technology-
integrated lessons and instruction at NMS.
The SAMR model is a framework developed to support teachers in integrating technol-
ogy. This framework identifies four levels of technology integration: substitution, augmentation,
modification, and redefinition. The levels are assigned to two categories: enhancement and trans-
formational. The enhancement category includes substitution and augmentation and the trans-
formational category includes modification and redefinition. Transformational contains
integration with the most impact on student learning. The SAMR model assists educators to con-
struct the optimal teaching and learning experience in the classroom (Kidder et al., 2014).
One other theoretical framework was also selected as a tool for this study. The TPACK
conceptual framework describes pedagogical and content knowledge as the foundation for
TPACK (Fisser et al., 2013). Although learning can take place in isolation, this conceptual
framework posits that optimal learning occurs when instruction incorporates all three areas of
knowledge, known as the “sweet spot.”
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 77
When SAMR and TPACK were applied, three teaching practices emerged from the study
at NMS. These practices, viewed from the theoretical frameworks, appear to utilize the sweet
spot from TPACK framework and the transformational category from SAMR model. The teach-
ing practices included formative assessments, student collaboration, student responses, and
immediate feedback.
The first SAMR transformational practice that was applied was use of technology to
collect formative data. This collection of data through formative assessment allowed the teacher
to gauge the learning and advance to in-depth content-based activities. The teacher offers a short
response to a writing prompt as a warm up at the beginning of class to understand the back-
ground knowledge of the students on the specific topic. The responses are anonymous and pub-
lished to lead the class to in-depth discussion. The teacher immediately takes into account the
students’ prior knowledge based on responses in the first part of class and builds from those data.
This response is consistent with how to apply the “sweet spot” according to the TPACK frame-
work.
The next SAMR transformational practice that was applied was student collaboration.
The teachers facilitate and monitor collaboration with technology integration. The collaboration
includes students working in pairs or groups engaging in the content-specific activity and ques-
tions. The technology integration utilizes Google tools to make real-time changes during class or
while the students are at home. Collaboration is captured in a Google Doc and the teacher moni-
tors changes as they happen. The main components of the theoretical TPACK framework
appeared to be applied during these activities.
The third SAMR transformational practice that was applied observed was that teachers
integrated technology to collect student responses. Student responses are typically collected in a
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 78
nontechnology-integrated classroom; however, the “sweet spot” of TPACK was applied when
the teachers provided immediate corrective feedback to guide students. This immediate feedback
contributed to real-time responses for all students, so learning gaps are smaller.
Teacher Collaboration and Teachers Learning From Teachers
The next theme was triangulated with findings from observations, interviews, and docu-
ment reviews. Teacher collaboration and teachers learning from other teachers to assist in tech-
nology integration was a part of the campus culture at HMS. Examples of collaboration and
teachers learning from teachers are the DLCs and the fellows. The DLCs were once classroom
teachers in the district and are now out of the classroom full time to coach teachers who are
interested in integrating technology in their classrooms. The DLCs work side by side with
fellows to assist fellows in integrating Pear Deck at NMS.
Another example of collaboration and teachers learning from teachers was observed
when four fellows presented their best practices at a staff meeting. The teachers identified as
fellows learned from the DLCs and then the fellows led in-service training sessions at NMS for
their peers. These in-service sessions and collaboration time were scheduled and delivered by the
fellows to allow the teachers to self-select the fellow with whom they felt most comfortable in
working. Teacher collaboration of technology integration appeared to be a part of the culture at
HMS.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the findings, the data analysis, the emergent themes, and how the
conceptual frameworks were applied to the study. The results were presented based on the four
research questions. Findings related to Research Question 1, “How do educators at NMS inte-
grate technology to support student learning?” focused on access to technology and integrated
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 79
practices. Findings related to Research Question 2, “To what factors do educators at NMS attrib-
ute their knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an
instructional tool?” included professional development and coaching. Findings related to
Research Question 4, “In what ways are educators at NMS provided support for technology inte-
gration and implementation?” included district-level and site-level support. Findings for
Research Question 4, “What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implemen-
tation at NMS?” included the belief in technology positively affecting student learning. The
findings were discussed and categorized by research question.
The findings were considered carefully and five major themes emerged and supported
through triangulation of the data: (a) purposeful and specified professional development and
teacher training technology integration, (b) comprehensive access to technology for students and
teachers to utilize to implement technology integration, (c) district and site-level leadership to
support daily technology integration, (d) instructional practices through the lens of the SAMR
Model and the TPACK Framework, and (e) teacher collaboration and teachers learning from
teachers.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 80
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The constant dispute regarding the cost of technology and its effectiveness on student
learning outcomes continues today. Educators and researchers have specific beliefs regarding the
value of technology in educational settings. This case study investigated how technology has
been integrated into classroom instruction to affect student learning positively. Technology can
be a tool to allow classroom instruction to improve learning outcomes. This can be completed
through technology integration with consideration of the SAMR model and TPACK theoretical
framework.
This chapter presents conclusions and considerations for use of technology in K–12
schools based on findings that address the four research questions and the five major themes that
emerged. Three topics were categorized for consideration of technology integration: (a) implica-
tions for education, (b) recommendations for the educational field, and (c) recommendations for
further research.
Purpose of the Study
The study examined the instructional practices with the use of technology integration in a
K–12 school. The researcher selected a K–12 school that had adopted technology into instruc-
tional practices. The case study was conducted at a school in southern California that has demon-
strated a commitment to schoolwide technology integration. The researcher’s intent was to study
how integration of technology was utilized in the classroom to engage students in the learning.
Furthermore, the study investigated how access to technology, staff beliefs, and district-level and
site-level support contribute to technology integration.
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. How do educators at NMS integrate technology to support student learning?
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 81
2. To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills and the corresponding
pedagogy needed to utilize technology as a viable instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and imple-
mentation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at NMS?
Triangulated data analysis produced four emergent themes based on these research ques-
tions: (a) purposeful and specified professional development and teacher training technology
integration, (b) comprehensive access to technology for students and teachers to utilize to
implement technology integration, (c) district and site-level leadership to support the daily tech-
nology integration, (d) instructional practices applied through the lens of the SAMR Model and
the TPACK Framework, and (e) teacher collaboration and teachers learning from teachers.
Implications for Education
This case study investigated the transformational instructional practices and features of
technology integration at one school. These findings may not be generalized to other K–12
school; however, there are implications that educators should consider. Although the data
reported in this study were collected from one selected school, the findings may guide other
middle schools in implementing technology integration. Instructional practices with technology
observed in this study features support for technology implementation. The first implication
regards technology access for both teachers and students. The second implication regards ongo-
ing professional development. The third implication regards teacher collaboration in supporting
instructional practice.
The first implication addressed access to robust comprehensive technology resources.
The school site advanced in technology infrastructure based on funds from a bond measure.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 82
Many upgrades were included in the technology infrastructure blueprint to supplement
improvements in access to the Internet. The bond measure provided schools with one-to-one
device rollout: iPads with apps for students and teachers. Each classroom installation included
SmartBoards, wireless microphone and speaker system, document cameras, scanners, LCD pro-
jectors, and teacher desktop computers. The rollout included a learning management system and
other tools to support school sites to implement technology integration. Access to the technology
became the foundation for technology integration because, without the devices, technology inte-
gration would be difficult to implement.
Professional development and training was considered as a key component for imple-
mentation of transformational technology integration at NMS. The content and grade-level pro-
fessional development and training supported teachers in integrating technology directly into
their classrooms. This support was in the form of time for training and professional development
through deployment of the DLC program. The DLCs led summer institutes, site-based staff
meetings, and professional development sessions. The teachers indicated that support with the
coaching cycle, as part of professional development, was key in supporting their technology
integration. The one-on-one direct support was helpful to ensure that the instruction contained
features to monitor student input and teacher feedback for the students. The support assisted in
ensuring teacher buy-in. Teachers indicated that acquiring input from students and quickly
providing feedback on an assignment was a feature with which they agreed because of the time-
liness of the information.
Cotton et al. (2014) studied deployment of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program at
three districts and suggested that implementation, maintenance, and teacher support are critical
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 83
for effective technology integration. The findings related to Research Questions 2 and 3 are in
alignment with the OLPC study.
Support for teachers was identified in the form of professional development, device
training, and in-class coaching; this should be taken into consideration to demonstrate the posi-
tive effects on student learning and achievement. This consideration requires fiscal and time
commitments by the administration and teachers. Cotton et al. (2014) implied that support pro-
vided to teachers was aligned with how the technology was used in the classroom. Positive
results were demonstrated in increasing technology integration knowledge when professional
development was targeted and content specific (Leary et al., 2012). Schools with successful
implementation have identified teachers as technology leads, who then assist in supporting and
collaborating with other teachers. In conclusion, the study suggested that support that provided to
teachers may positively influence the daily use of technology integration.
Use of the SAMR model and the TPACK framework should be carefully considered to
provide models for transformational instructional practices with technology. Because technology
can be utilized in many ways to deliver instruction, it is essential that educators consider both the
SAMR model and TPACK framework to develop lessons that affect student learning positively.
These two structures are tools to support efforts to integrate technology with transformational
teaching practices in the classroom.
During the coaching cycle observations, it appeared that pedagogical and content
knowledge were essential to determine what technology would exert a positive impact on student
learning. The first set of specific questions presented by the DLC during the coaching cycles
addressed the content, the pedagogical strategy, and the learning outcomes that teachers wanted.
During the observation, the DLC asked these questions while assisting a fellow to integrate
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 84
technology into the lesson: (a) What are the students working on? and (b) What do you want
your students to be able to learn?
The DLC assists her fellow with how to implement the learning management system to
embed instruction for students. The instructions allowed students to create their own electronic
portfolio, with accessibility by both student and teacher. The electronic portfolios were shared
with peers for peer review to assist students prior to submitting the final product. Also, the elec-
tronic portfolio provided the opportunity for the teacher to offer immediate feedback and sug-
gestions for improvement. This instructional focus is aligned with the use of transformational
practices as identified by the SAMR model and the TPACK framework.
Recommendations for the Education Profession
The findings from this study increased the knowledge held by the researcher. Several
suggestions for the field of education to consider are based on the findings of the study. The
findings indicate that technology integration is an evolving process for staff and students. From
this understanding, two recommendations are to (a) implement a districtwide technology upgrade
with instructional integration support to systemically provide tools for educators to provide
technology-integrated instruction in the classroom, and (b) systematically provide technology-
driven preservice courses in teacher education programs.
The first recommendation is to replicate the systemwide technology upgrades to begin
instructional practices with technology integration in a district. Although there is a budgetary
impact for technology initiatives, these expenditures can be earmarked by districts. The plan
should take time to assist with rollout and a large fiscal commitment for devices, software, pro-
fessional development, training, DLCs, and maintenance. The 3- year plan should be in place and
updated annually, based on possible budgetary fluctuations. This 3-year technology integration
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 85
plan could be included in the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) that districts are man-
dated to update annually.
The second recommendation is related to teacher preparation programs. Based on the
findings from the case study, understanding of transformational technology-integrated instruction
is crucial for student learning. Therefore, preservice programs should consider offering the
SAMR model and TPACK framework in their courses. With the model and framework, teachers
would enter educational institutions with understanding of how technology can be more effi-
ciently utilized to engage students in collaboration, to collect responses, to provide immediate
feedback, and to gather formative data. This thoughtful preparation could assist teachers to
develop transformational instructional practices in the classroom immediately upon leaving
preservice colleges. Given that these practices are ideal when integrating technology in class-
rooms, preservice programs should consider including these 21st-century practices.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings of this case study, two recommendations are presented for future
research to strengthen the current findings about technology integration in K–12 settings and its
impact on student learning: (a) a study of other school sites outside of the district to replicate
technology infrastructures, the DLC program, and a professional development and training plan
to determine whether it would result in similar transformational instructional practices as those
seen at NMS; and (b) a study of other middle school sites to identify elements that contribute to a
“failure to launch” technology integration.
Additional studies of schools in this school district would be beneficial by identifying
districtwide trends and themes. These studies would be beneficial to consider how other sites in
this district are implementing technology to transform student learning in a positive manner. This
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 86
research would contribute to the larger body of studies and offer districts other case studies to
consider when deciding to implement a districtwide technology initiative.
The second recommendation to add to the body of research would be to study another
middle school that has implemented a technology initiative but has experienced a “failure to
launch” their one-to-one technology plan. Results would benefit many schools and school dis-
tricts as they consider features that did not work effectively to implement the intended technol-
ogy initiative.
Conclusion
The debate over technology’s contributions to student learning continues; however,
several conclusions were reached based on the findings from this case study. The study was
guided by four research questions. The research questions and the related findings were as
follows:
1. How do educators at NMS integrate technology to support student learning? The
findings identified technology that was accessible and available for students and teachers, as well
as a description of how teachers utilize technology integration to support student learning.
2. To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills and the corresponding
pedagogy needed to utilize technology as a viable instructional tool? The findings identified pro-
fessional development and training for teachers to understand how to implement the latest tech-
nology tools and software.
3. In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and imple-
mentation? District and site-level support included the type of professional development offered,
the DLC program, and time to collaborate with colleagues and attempt new applications.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 87
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at NMS?
The educators agreed that use of technology supplements the foundation of good teaching, which
includes the combination of content knowledge and strategies to engage students in learning a
specific topic.
These findings indicated that collaboration and teachers learning from teachers, with pur-
poseful professional development and training, were essential components of school-wide tech-
nology integration. The triangulated data also indicated that comprehensive access to technology
and support by the district and site-level administration were necessary to ensure that technology
integration appeared in classroom instruction.
The SAMR model and TPACK framework were developed to assist educators to develop
technology-integrated lessons for optimal learning outcomes. Developing teachers’ understand-
ing and application of the SAMR model, especially regarding the difference between enhance-
ment and transformation, would assist with integration of technology in the learning environment
at a level beyond substitution and modification. Better understanding of the TPACK framework
and the interconnection of content, pedagogy, and technology would result in more effective
technology integration in the classroom. Knowledge of how to utilize the SAMR model and
TPACK framework would assist educators to monitor and self-assess their own instructional
practices. The elements of the frameworks are a main focal point for the instructional initiative,
including technology integration to improve educators’ ability to facilitate student collaboration,
collection of student responses, immediate response by teachers to students, and data collection
to engage students in the transformational learning intended in this instructional technology
design.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 88
As the 21st century continues to demand that students in California demonstrate their
knowledge on a digital platform, it has become critical for districts to ensure that technology
devices are in the hands of students and that technology is integrated in classrooms. An initiative
such as this entails a large fiscal responsibility; therefore, it has become imperative to consider a
comprehensive plan that includes school-wide technology integration practices as demonstrated
in this case study.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 89
REFERENCES
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interac-
tion in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve
practice. Journal of Computers in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K–12 teachers’ belief, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-60.
Anthony, A. B., & Clark, L. M. (2011). Examining dilemmas of practice associated with the
integration of technology into mathematics classrooms serving urban students. Urban
Education, 46, 1300-1331.
Bennette, S., Kervin, M., & Maton, K. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of
the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775-786.
Benzon, M., Denler, H., & Wolters, C. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., Robb, M., Schomburg, R., & Wartella, E. (2013). Adoption
and use of technology in early education: The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher
attitudes. Computers and Education, 69, 310-319.
Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of
technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3-7.
Brooke, M. (2013). A critical analysis of selected policy making decisions in the US and the UK
with regard to the implementation of information and communication technology (ICT)
in national state primary and secondary school education systems. Open Journal of
Modern Linguistics, 3(1), 94-99.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 90
Brown, C., Delialioglu, O., & Semiral, O. (2008). Critical components for technology integra-
tion: How do instructors make decisions? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 27(1), 19-46.
Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Stu-
dents’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technol-
ogy and Teacher Education, 14, 599-621.
Brush, T., & Hew, K. F. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology
Research Development, 55, 223-252.
California Department of Education. (2013a). Common core state standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education. (2013b). State schools chief Tom Torlakson announces
California joins national partnership to teach students 21st-century skills. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yer13rel33.asp
California Department of Education. (2014). Empowering learning: A blueprint for California
education technology 2014-2017. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/
documents/yr14bp0418.pdf
California Department of Education. (2015). Smarter Balanced Assessment System. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/
California Legislative Information. (2013). Assembly Bill No. 484. Retrieved from http://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB484
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 91
Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes,
and consequences of laptop computer in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Com-
puting Research, 45, 359-378.
Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integra-
tion? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2006). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cotton, S., Farkas, G., Niiya, M., Warschauer, M., & Zheng, B. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one
equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity and Excellence in Educa-
tion, 47(1), 46-62.
Cox, M., Knezek, D., Knezek, G., ten Brummelhuis, A., & Voogt, J., (2011). Under which con-
ditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 10(1), 1-11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeMeester, K., Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, C., & Spector, M. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs and technol-
ogy integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. doi:10.1016/j.tate
.2012.08/005
Dexter, S., Doering, A. H., & Riedel, E. S. (2006). Content area specific technology integration:
A model for educating teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 325-
345.
Dhir, A., Gahwaji, N. M., & Nyman, G. (2013). The role of the iPad in the hands of the learner.
Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19, 706-727.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 92
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical
changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Com-
puters and Education, 64, 175-182.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
and Education, 59, 423-435.
Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Voogt, J. (2013). Technology peda-
gogical content knowledge: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what’s “right.” In C. Glesne (Ed.), Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Hus, S., & Kuan, P. (2013). The impact of multilevel factors on technology integration: The case
of Taiwanese Grade 1-9 teachers and schools. Education Technology Research and
Development, 61, 25-50. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9269-y
Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases
integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
21(1), 37-56.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K–12 class-
rooms: A path model. Education and Technical Research Development, 58, 137-154.
Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2012). Do one-to-one initiatives bridge
the way to 21st-century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 46(1), 1-20.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 93
Kidder, L. C., Romrell, D., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating
in learning. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264549561
_The_SAMR_Model_as_a_Framework_for_Evaluating_mLearning
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and prac-
tices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Educa-
tion, 59, 1109-1121.
Labbo, L. D., & Place, K. (2010). Fresh perspectives on new literacies and technology integra-
tion. Voices From the Middle, 17(3), 9-18.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology
into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575-614.
Leonard, L. J., & Leonard, P. E. (2006). Leadership for technology integration: Computing the
reality. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52, 212-224.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of
information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 16, 233-263.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implantation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
November, A. (2013). Why schools must move beyond one-to-one computing. Retrieved from
http://www.novemberlearning.com
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 94
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st-century skills, educational & competitiveness: A
resource and policy guide. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/
21st_century_skills_education_ and_competitiveness_guide.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). About us. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (pp. 339-415). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technol-
ogy? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 44, 314-327.
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html
Puentedura, R. R. (2014). SAMR learning and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus
.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014 /11/28/SAMRLearningAssessment.pdf
Scuell, T. (2006). Theories of learning. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/theories-of-learning/
Shieh, R. (2012). The impact of technology-enabled active leaning (TEAL) implementation on
student learning and teachers’ teaching in high school context. Computers and Educa-
tion: An International Journal, 59, 206-214.
Swain, C. (2006). Preservice teachers self-assessment using technology: Determining what is
worthwhile and looking for changes in daily teaching and learning practices. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 29-59.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 95
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N. P., Tondeur, J., & van Braakt, J. (2013). Technological peda-
gogical content knowledge: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2011). Under which con-
ditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 4-14.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why our kids don’t have the skills they need for
college, careers, and citizenship-and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How and why to transform schools with digital
media. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 96
APPENDIX A
DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL

RQ 1: How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?

Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
How are teachers using instructional
technology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
How are students using instructional
technology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics

RQ 2: What factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills and pedagogy to utilize technology
as an instructional tool?

Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Teacher education programs
Professional Development
Personal knowledge/research
Teacher responses
Professional development records
Staff meeting/training agendas

RQ 3: In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and implementation?

Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Types of PD
Resources
School plan
Professional development records
IT Support Coaching/observation schedules
Site Budget LCAP Plan
Site Budget Process
Coaching – formal and informal
Staff meeting/training agendas
SARC
WASC Documents

RQ 4: What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at “School X”?

Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Educators’ Beliefs School Plan
Lesson Plans
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 97
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Integration of Instructional Technology

Demographic Information 1
0-5
Years
2
6-15 Years
3
16-25 Years
4
26 +
Years
How many years have you been teaching?

Student Learning 1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of the
Time
4
Almost
Always
My instruction involves use of technology.
My lessons encourage creativity and
innovation through student use of
technology.

My lessons embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem-
solving through student use of technology

My lessons embed student use of
technology in the classroom.

My lessons embed student use of
technology outside of the classroom.

Students are encouraged to work
collaboratively with other students while
using technology.

Professional development (PD) sessions
have improved my use of technology in the
classroom.

I use technology to differentiate instruction.

Technology Skills 1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of the
Time
4
Almost
Always
I use technology daily in a variety of ways
to present lessons.

I use technology in a variety of ways to
assess student learning.

I go out of my way to stay current on the
new innovations with technology.

TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 98

Technology Support 1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of the
Time
4
Almost
Always
Use of technology is encouraged and
promoted at my school.

IT support staff is available to assist when
needed.

A mentor is available to support technology
integration.

Use of instructional technology is a
component of my school’s culture.

Teachers are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional
technology.

Technology Beliefs 1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
I support the use of technology in the
classroom.

Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning.

Technology is an important part of teaching
and learning.

My classroom is student-centered.
My students are empowered to be
responsible for their own learning.

TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 99
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1: How do educators
at school X integrate
technology to support
students learning?

1. How would you describe the use of technology in your classroom?
2. How are students using instructional technology in the classroom?
3. What are some instructional strategies that technology can help in
differentiating instruction for diverse students?
4. What technology device is used to assist in student motivation?
How do you know?
5. What applications and/or software programs are used to support
student learning?
6. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

RQ2: What factors do
educators attribute their
knowledge of skills and
pedagogy to utilize
technology as an
instructional tool?

1. To what do you attribute your background knowledge of
technology?
2. How do you continue to acquire knowledge of technology device
use?
3. How did you learn to integrate technology in your instruction?
4. How do you determine what technology to use with your students?
5. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

RQ3: In what ways are
educators at School X
provided support for
technology integration
and implementation?

1. How does the school support and train teachers to use technology
devices and applications?
2. How does the school make technology accessible to teachers?
3. In what ways are teachers provided support and/or informational
resources regarding integrating technology in the curriculum?
4. What are some obstacles in implementing technology in student
learning?
5. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

RQ4: What are
educators’ beliefs about
technology integration
and implementation at
School X?

1. How do you feel about the use of technology?
2. What do you believe are the benefits of technology in the classroom?
3. Some people say technology takes too much time, what would you
say to this?
4. What advice would you give a novice teacher in the inclusion of
technology in their classroom?
5. What is your favorite technology to use while teaching? Why?
6. Is there anything else you would you like to share?
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 100
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 101

For
additional
resources
-‐
http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/

DSC
contact
information
–
rsoedsc@rossier.usc.edu
or
(213)740-‐8099
TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 102
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW COVER LETTER/EMAIL

DATE

Dear INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF MEMBER’S NAME,

My name is YOUR NAME, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my disserta-
tion, which examines the use of technology in K-12 schools and its impact on instruction and
learning. You are cordially invited to participate in the study. Participation in this study is com-
pletely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 10 minute survey that contains
twenty-two multiple choice questions. You may be asked for an interview depending on your
responses to the survey questions and your availability. The interview is anticipated to take
about 30 minutes to complete and will be audio-taped with your permission.

If you would like to participate or have questions, please contact me at _______________

Thank you for your participation,

Veronica Maddox, USC doctoral candidate

ronimaddoxusc@gmail.com

(714) 392-1992

TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDY 103
APPENDIX F
CONSENT FORM

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education

3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

CONSENT TO AUDIO RECORD INTERVIEW

TITLE OF THE STUDY

A STUDY OF TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS

Veronica Maddox, USC doctoral candidate

ronimaddoxusc@gmail.com

CONSENT

I, ________________________________________, hereby consent to the audio recording of the
interview taken by the researcher for the purpose of collecting data for the above study. I have
been advised that all data collected shall be confidential and used solely for the purposes of this
study. I authorize the transcription of this interview from the audio recording for use by the
researcher for preparation of the study. Any quotes and or description of answers will be anon-
ymous.

Signature Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As schools continue to integrate technology into the classroom, the focus has been to ensure that educators are able to maximize the use of technology integration to transform teaching and learning. This mixed-methods approach was applied to address four research questions related to transformational technology use in K–12 schools focused on four key areas: technology integration used to support student learning by educators, technology integration skill and knowledge of educators, technology integration support for educators, and technology integration and implementation beliefs held by educators. This case study was conducted at a public middle school in California that demonstrated a commitment to purposeful technology integration. This study applied the Substitute Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model and the Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework to understand the use of technology integration and the impact on the teaching and learning. ❧ Data were collected and triangulated through document analysis, staff surveys, interviews, and observations to support four major finding that indicated evidence of transformational technology integration. The first finding addressed purposeful and specified professional development along with teacher training. The second finding identified comprehensive access to technology for students and teachers to utilize for technology integration implementation. The third finding identified the district and site-level leadership support for daily use of technology integration. The fourth finding showed that transformative instructional practices were evident when practices were applied through the lens of the SAMR model and the TPACK framework. These instructional practices were purposeful, with support provided by district and site-level leadership, as well as purposeful technology integration into professional development and teacher training.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school

PDF

Technology practices and 21st century learning: a high school case study

PDF

Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

Transformative technology: teaching and learning at a 21st century elementary school

PDF

Investigating the dynamics of a 21st-century school integrating and implementing technology to enhance teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

1:1 device program in a K-12 public school: the influence of technology on teaching and learning

PDF

Integration of technology and teaching and learning practices at a technology magnet elementary school: a case study

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

Technology integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction in K–12 schools

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school

PDF

Outperformance in a nontraditional urban elementary school: a case study

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

The plight of African American males in urban schools: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Lui Maddox, Veronica May (author)

Core Title Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/14/2016

Defense Date 02/08/2016

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

Tag instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,SAMR,Technology,TPACK

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Escalante, Michael (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email RoniMaddoxUSC@gmail.com,vmaddox@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-227691

Unique identifier UC11278061

Identifier etd-LuiMaddoxV-4247.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-227691 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LuiMaddoxV-4247.pdf

Dmrecord 227691

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lui Maddox, Veronica May

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