University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1
A CASE STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY-EMBEDDED INSTRUCTION:
A STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACH TO ENHANCE TEACHING
AND LEARNING IN A K–12 SCHOOL
by
Laura Robles
____________________________________________________________________
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 Laura Robles
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 2
DEDICATION
I proudly dedicate this dissertation to my loving and supportive parents, Ernesto and
Maria. Completing a doctoral degree is a team effort, and I would not be here without them. I
thank them very much for their sacrifice and everything that they do to provide for our family. I
am very grateful for both of them. They are my greatest source for motivation and inspiration.
They have taught me the value of hard work and to pursue my dreams.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My family, friends, and colleagues have support me, cheering me on. My mentor and
friend, Ms. Kimball, has always been a source of inspiration. Dr. Gothold provided valuable
guidance, advice, and encouragement. Dr. Pulver and Dr. Hocevar gave support and
recommendations. My Trojan family (they know who they are) have made this a memorable
experience, thanks to their friendship and humor. Last but not least, Moises gave love and
support, experiencing every step of this journey with me. I joyfully share this with him.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the Study 12
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions 13
Operational Definitions 14
Organization of the Dissertation 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs 20
Benefits When Teachers Embrace Technology 27
Learner-Centered Model 29
Project-Based Learning 29
Flip Classroom Model 30
Project Learning Bicycle Model 30
Blended Learning 31
Higher Order Thinking Skills 32
Access to Technology 35
Support of Technology Use 39
Case Development Model 40
Quality Teaching and Learning (QTL) Model 41
Quantifying Uncertainty and Analyzing Numerical Trends (QUANT) Model 42
Who Took My Chalk? Model 42
Pedagogy 45
TPACK Framework 47
Figure 1, The TPACK framework and its knowledge components 49
SAMR Model 49
Current Practice 50
Summary and Critique of the Literature 53
Chapter 3: Methods 56
Methodology 57
Sample and Population 58
Instrumentation 61
Data Collection 62
Participant Privacy and Data Confidentiality 64
Data Analysis 65
Chapter 4: Results 67
Research Tools 67
Background of the School 69
Findings for Research Question 1 70
Differentiation 72
Motivation and Classroom Management 74
Assessment 76
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 5
Student Voice and Choice 77
Summary 79
Findings for Research Question 2 80
Findings for Research Question 3 84
Findings for Research Question 4 94
Emergent Themes 99
Student-Centered Approach 99
Culture of Growth 99
Accessibility 99
Shared Vision 100
TPACK Framework 100
Chapter Summary 102
Chapter 5: Discussion 104
Overview 104
Purpose, Methodology, and Significance 104
Discussion of Findings 106
Student-Centered Approach 106
Culture 107
Accessibility 108
Vision 107
Implications for Practice 109
Future Research 111
Conclusions 113
References 115
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 119
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 120
Appendix C: Survey Protocol 122
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Document Review Matrix 63
Table 2: Survey Results for Research Question 1 79
Table 3: Survey Results for Research Question 2 82
Table 4: Survey Results for Research Question 3 89
Table 5: Survey Results for Research Question 4 97
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 7
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the dynamics of a K–12 school (Monarch Elementary) that was
actively integrating and implementing technology in its curriculum and instruction. The Tech-
nology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework was used as a lens to understand
how schoolwide goals and practices led to successful integration of technology. Four research
questions guided the study: (a) How do educators integrate technology to support students
learning? (b) To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of instructional technology
skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as instructional tool? (c) In what ways are educators
provided support for technology integration and implementation? and (d) What are educators’
beliefs about technology integration and implementation? Information was collected via teacher
surveys, staff interviews, classroom observations, and school policy documents. A qualitative
research methodology was applied to identify practices used to integrate technology into cur-
riculum and instruction. Four themes emerged from the triangulation of data: (a) student-
centered approach, (b) culture, (c) accessibility, and (d) vision. Students in this study were
engaged in transformative technology-embedded activities that facilitated development of 21st-
century skills, such as creating, communicating, and collaborating. Teachers implemented the
school’s iPad
®
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program for differentiation and enhancement
of learning in classrooms, which gave students more voice and choice. Monarch Elementary is a
model for educators and provides strategies and vision for embedding technology in the class-
room. As students learn technology literacy skills, they are empowered; develop global aware-
ness; and increase motivation, engagement, and self-reliance.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Whether learning is accomplished through means of stone tablet or an iPad, or whether
classrooms are framed by walls or windows, is not as important as the problem of
whether the actual structures of the pedagogical relationship are themselves thrown into
question. (Lewkowich, 2012, p. 28)
Background of the Problem
Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2011) stated that educational organizations have
invested billions of dollars on equipping classrooms with computers. There is a variety of tech-
nology learning tools available; however, there is still a need to understand which tool and
pedagogical practice provides the most effective learning outcomes. Although technology
resources are available, barriers such as teacher knowledge, skills, confidence, and time influ-
ence and impact educators’ beliefs and their ability to integrate technology in their practice. This
research was guided by a review of literature showing that educators lack knowledge and tech-
nology skills related to how to work the technology and how to teach and apply it effectively in
their classrooms. Even when professional development support is presented, it is often not sig-
nificant enough to provide educators with an adequate experience to improve their confidence
and ability to apply the knowledge effectively in their classrooms. Findings suggest that teach-
ers’ preservice programs, their background with technology, mentor programs, and technology-
oriented schoolwide professional development goals may influence teachers’ beliefs about tech-
nology integration. Integrating technology to address students’ needs is at the forefront of educa-
tional policy; however, despite the major investment in technology equipment, “students report
using the computers sparsely in their schools” (p. 81). It is significant to understand the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 9
dynamics of a school that actively implements technology in an effort to transform student
achievement.
Statement of the Problem
There is currently a gap between research and practice. An and Reigeluth (2011)
explained that, rather than using technology in the ways that the literature and research suggest,
teachers are using technology for common “low-level” tasks that align minimally with peda-
gogical practices. This research study builds on common themes found in previous research
showing that factors such as school support, technology resources, and teachers’ beliefs may
affect successful implementation and integration of technology in the classroom. These topics
and themes are the dynamics in a school that may determine the outcome for student achieve-
ment. For example, professional development programs influence the way in which educators
gain pedagogical knowledge and confidence to integrate technology in the classroom. Access to
technology resources may also influence a teachers’ ability to integrate technology in the class-
room. For example, access to technology in the classroom, access to a personal desktop or
laptop, and access to a school computer lab may contribute to easier integration of technology in
the curriculum. Another factor that contributes to integration of technology in the classroom may
be the teachers’ perceptions. For example, a teacher’s prior knowledge of the use of technology
may influence how and how often technology is integrated in the curriculum. If a teacher is
knowledgeable about how to use the technology device, it is more likely that the device will be
integrated in the classroom.
Although districts may provide some form of technology professional development, a
review of literature showed that teachers might still face difficulty in integrating technology in
classroom instruction. A lack of positive beliefs about how technology affects student
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 10
achievement may also influence successful integration of technology in the classroom. Factors
such as the level of school support by administration, access to technology resources, and lack of
teachers’ knowledge and negative perceptions may serve as barriers to integration of technology
in the classroom. Technology is a tool to increase student collaboration, communication, critical
thinking, and creativity. Although the presence of K–12 classroom technology has increased, its
integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction are inconsistent.
Purpose of the Study
This study investigated the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating and
implementing technology in its curriculum and instruction. In an effort to gain insight into trans-
formational practices associated with the use of technology, this study examined the teaching and
learning environment and educational practices at Monarch Elementary. The review of literature
indicates that the actual usage of technology in most classrooms involves low levels of cognitive
demand, such as administrative tasks, drill, and practice. There is a wide range of technology
learning tools available; however, there is still a need to understand which tool and pedagogical
practice provides the most effective learning outcome.
This study applied a qualitative descriptive research methodology to expand researchers’
knowledge of technology practices or phenomena that affect education. This study reports results
from surveys, interviews, observations, and document reviews. The study was guided by the four
research questions: (a) How do educators at Monarch Elementary integrate technology to support
students learning? (b) To what factors do educators at Monarch Elementary attribute their
knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as instructional
tool? (c) In what ways are educators at Monarch Elementary provided support for technology
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 11
integration and implementation? and (d) What are educators’ beliefs about technology integra-
tion and implementation at Monarch Elementary?
As a lens to explain why things happen, this research study used Bolman and Deal’s four
frames, the Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), and the Substitution, Aug-
mentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model.
Bolman and Deal (2010) suggested that schools are complex systems. They offer four
perspectives of how schools may be understood: structural, political, symbolic, and human
resource frames. The structural frame suggests a lens of how leaders can organize schools to get
better results. The human resources frame provides a way to tailor schools to satisfy human
needs and build positive group dynamics. The political frame offers a guide as to how to manage
conflict, build coalitions, and deal with internal and external issues. The symbolic frame shows
how can leaders shape culture to build a spirit through ritual, ceremony, and story. By reflecting
on a variety of aspects of school dynamics, Bolman and Deal (2010) suggest that “most admin-
istrators succeed when they can look at things from more than one angle” (p. 3).
Developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009), the TPACK is a framework that is described
as a complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology.
The objective of TPACK is to help the educator to understand and describe the types of
knowledge that teachers need to be in a position to integrate technology in the classroom (p. 67).
This is a framework to assess knowledge gaps in teaching practices.
The SAMR model is a framework for evaluating mLearning (mobile learning). Devel-
oped by Ruben R. Puentedura, the SAMR model consists of four levels of technology integration
(substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition). This framework is used to catego-
rize learning activities. This is significant in identifying higher levels of teaching and learning
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 12
practices. The SAMR model provided a framework for instructional designers to evaluate
mLearning activities in an effort to identify how well they meet the goal of transformative
learning through the use of a mobile device (Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014).
Importance of the Study
“In 1981, there was one computer for every 125 students in schools. By 1991, there was
one for every 18; and in 2000, there was one for every child; and if a $100 laptop becomes a
reality, they will likely be everywhere” (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 81).
Findings from this study may inform initial teacher preparation in developing subject
area-specific technology integration learning activities. College teacher preparation programs
that teachers using technology may help to increase the continual integration of technology in
future educational endeavors. Teachers’ background with technology experience and beliefs,
along with school support, influence the integration of technology in the classroom.
By comparing the phenomena at Monarch Elementary to the research, this new
knowledge may inform administrators of how to support technology integration efforts by indi-
vidual teachers or groups of teachers. Administrators may play a role in providing guidance,
support, and resources. Changes to professional development may help to understand and
address external and/or internal barriers to technology integration. Administrators and profes-
sional development have the potential to address teacher “internal” barriers to technology
integration and influence teachers’ beliefs. The results of this study may also provide educational
leaders with insight on the relationship between teachers’ internal and external barriers to tech-
nology implementation.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 13
What is missing from the research are specific examples of schools that are actively
implementing technology and are transforming their curriculum and instruction. This research
study was designed to decrease the knowledge gap between research and practice.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
A limitation associated with this study involves the fact that technology integration to
enhance student learning is a relatively new topic. Due to the constant changes in technology,
such as iPads
®
and Chromebooks
®
, as well as software such as Google Docs, is a topic that is
limited in the review of literature. There are limited data regarding effective practices of technol-
ogy implemented in schools. For example, several characteristics of professional development
may lead to increased knowledge and beliefs by teachers; however, more research is needed to
investigate the impact on student learning and whether models described in the literature review
lead to significant transformational teaching practices and changes.
This researcher was also limited to visiting the school site five times within a 3-month
period. The data gathered was limited to five visitations, four interviewees, three classroom
observations, and one media center observation. Due to the study of one school site, the infor-
mation in this study cannot be generalized. The sample is small. In addition, this study is limited
to four primary research questions. Although assumptions can be made, generalizability is not
warranted. No students, parents, or other school staff participated in this study. These partici-
pants might have offered a different perspective or opinion on the topic.
The researcher is a practicing teacher completing a doctoral program in educational lead-
ership. The researcher was interested in practices and policies that influence the field of educa-
tion. Due to the researcher’s nature of work, there might be a bias of looking at data through a
teacher’s lens and making premature assumptions due to the researcher’s teaching and school
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 14
experience. Validity of the data was assured through triangulation, prolonged time in the field,
and peer debriefing. The researcher worked with a research team and constantly used the peer
debriefing process on every step of the research process to avoid bias in the study.
Operational Definitions
21st-century skills: Certain 21st-century skills are part of a national campaign, Common
Core Standards, that outlines what student learning outcomes and support should reflect. The
21st-century skills or four C’s are collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking
and problem solving. These skills ought to be used as students learn content, such as reading,
writing, and mathematics (Taylor & Fratto, 2012).
Digital divide: Digital divide is associated with a social aspect of society that represents
the knowledge that people have regarding technology devices and how they are actually using
the devices, whether for academic or social means. Digital divide has less to do with access to
the technology tool and more to do with the knowledge and skills that people have to use the
technology in ways that can benefit and improve their lives (Wei & Hindman, 2011, p. 216).
Digital natives: Student needs are constantly changing. Students are exposed to technol-
ogy more than ever before. The term digital native has been coined to describe this “Net genera-
tion” that is growing up with technology (An & Reigeluth, 2011, p. 54).
One-to-one devices: This study focuses on a school that is actively integrating technol-
ogy. There has been an increase in mobile devices, such as iPads, in the classroom. One-to-one
access is described as one device available for each student. One-to-one devices have been found
to benefit at-risk and low-socioeconomic students (Darling-Hammond, Zielezinksi, & Goldman,
2014, p. 11).
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 15
School dynamics: The term refers to factors that affect integration of technology in
schools. These complex dynamics include teachers’ beliefs, access, school support, teacher
training, and professional development (Dawson, 2012).
Technology education: Brown and Brown (2010) suggested that technology education,
not to be confused with educational technology, has its own curriculum and educational objec-
tives and standards in education. These standards relate to the expectation that instructional
methods focus on student engagement with technology-embedded activities that provide “design
and problem-solving activities” (p. 51). For this study, technology education refers to ways in
which teachers and students incorporate technology in an effort to enhance teaching and learn-
ing. The term educational technology therefore represents the various types of technology hard-
ware and software used to accomplish the teaching and learning goals of technology education.
Transformational technology: Christensen et al. (2011) described a transformational
classroom as one “using computer based learning in schools that create a student centric class-
room where all students can learn in the ways their individual minds are wired to learn” (p. 86).
In this study, transformational technology in K–12 schools describes the enhancement of teach-
ing practices and learning outcomes through active integration of technology in curriculum and
instruction.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 presents the background,
purpose, research questions, significance, limitations, and definition of terms. Chapter 2 contains
a review of literature that is synthesized to gain insight into the barriers that affect technology
integration and teachers’ beliefs; examples of hopeful student-centered practices, school staff
support practices, programs, and pedagogical models; and current examples of effective
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 16
technology integration in schools. Chapter 3 describes the research questions, research design,
population and sampling, instrumentation, and data analyses for the study. The results of this
research are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the discussion, implications, and recom-
mendations for future research.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature, beginning with insight into the barriers that
affect technology integration and teacher beliefs. Next, once technology is accepted, how
students benefit from various student centered approaches and practices is presented. Then, posi-
tive and effective access, professional development and support programs, and pedagogical
models are described. The review examines examples of current and effective technology inte-
gration practices for teaching and learning in schools. The literature review concludes with a
summary and implications of previous studies and the theoretical framework of the present
study.
In an ever-growing and changing society, acquiring 21st-century skills and knowledge of
technology appears to be essential. Modern-day students are growing up with more exposure to
technological devices than they did 10 years ago. The term digital native has been coined to
describe this “Net generation,” which is growing up with technology (An & Reigeluth, 2011,
p. 54). Educational organizations are attempting to reflect the change in their educational prac-
tices and policies. The business world may be leading the change in the way that educational
systems are educating students. According to Trilling and Fadel (2009), “Pressure is increasing
on education systems around the world to teach in ways that will produce the knowledge workers
and innovators businesses need to be successful in the 21st century knowledge economy” (p. 25).
The new Common Core State Standards address the need for integration of technology. Technol-
ogy resources are the leading tools to facilitate teaching and learning of 21st-century skills: col-
laboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity. In order to support these 21st-
century skills, learners must be engaged and technology may be the tool to realize this goal (An
& Reigeluth, 2011, p. 54).
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 18
As a result of the pressure to teach 21st-century skills, educational systems have adopted
programs to implement technology integration policies. In 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD), the second-largest school district in the United States, implemented an iPad
program as part of their Common Core state-aligned technology project. The LAUSD technol-
ogy project was a billion-dollar initiative through which Apple Corporation and Pearson Pub-
lishing Corporation were expected to provide tablets and related curriculum to about 651,000
students. The district technology project was argued to be a means to “close a digital divide and
to provide the same access to learning tools students need to achieve in the 21st century”
(LAUSD, n.d.). Urban districts such as LAUSD face the challenge of providing technology
resources to a large number of low-socioeconomic students. Today’s jobs and future careers will
require students who have certain types of skills that require technology knowledge. Trilling and
Fadel (2009) illustrated this knowledge work as being done
collaboratively in teams, with team members often spread across multiple locations,
using a digital zoo of devices and services to coordinate their project work: cell phones,
voice over Internet Protocol communication, teleconferencing, Web conferencing,
laptops, personal digital assistants, databases, spreadsheets, calendar and contact
management software, e-mail, text messaging, Web sites, online collaboration spaces,
social networking tools. (p. 24).
Producing successful and productive members of society will require educational institutions to
focus on technology integration goals and practices.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to examine how schools are actively integrating tech-
nology and whether it is used to support teaching and learning. In the effort to promote and
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 19
increase student learning, it is significant to understand the current state of technology in K–12
schools and to identify best practices. Trilling and Fadel (2009) stated that, to become productive
contributors in the 21st century, people will have to learn content knowledge quickly. Acquiring
learning, innovation, technology, and career skills will be required for work and life (p. 16). The
21st-century skills may not necessarily be taught through technology; however, because the jobs
of today and future jobs will use these skills in a variety of technology, teaching 21st-century
skills through integration of technology is necessary.
The 21st-century skills are part of a national campaign, Common Core Standards, that
outlines what student learning outcomes and support should reflect. The 21st-century skills or
four C’s are collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking and problem solving.
These skills ought to be used as students learn content, such as reading, writing, and mathematics
(Taylor & Fratto, 2012, p. 20). Regardless of technology device,
whether learning is accomplished through means of stone tablet or an iPad, or whether
classrooms are framed by walls or windows, is not as important as the problem of
whether the actual structures of the pedagogical relationship are themselves thrown into
question. (Lewkowich, 2012, p. 28)
A variety of technology learning tools is available, however, there is still a need to under-
stand which tool and pedagogical practice provides the most effective learning outcome. This
research study was designed to decrease the knowledge gap between research and practice.
There is currently a gap between research and practice. An and Reigeluth (2011)
explained that, rather than using technology in the ways that the literature and research suggest,
teachers are using technology for common “low-level” tasks and aligning minimally with peda-
gogical practices (p. 56). In order to meet the societal needs of the 21st century, students must be
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 20
taught in different ways. Teaching 21st-century skills will require embracing technology in the
teaching and learning processes. There is currently not much progress in this direction. The goal
of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating and
implementing technology in the curriculum.
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs
Educators’ perceptions and beliefs about technology are influenced by a variety of
factors, such as personal technology knowledge and skills and continued professional develop-
ment support, which is an initial step toward successful integration of technology in teaching.
In the study “Enhancement of Integration of Technology into the Curriculum” Reel
(2009) explored factors influencing the integration of technology in the classroom. The main
question was, “How can an understanding of current state of integration of technology into the
curriculum in middle schools contribute to enhancements of the integration of technology into
the curriculum?” Motivation for the study incorporated the current role of technology, such that
the “influx of technology use in schools has altered the required skills that all learners must have
to further in today’s classroom” (p. 1). Through online surveys and focus group interviews, the
study used a mixed-methods approach to gather and analyze data. Respondents were 501 teach-
ers at 13 middle schools.
Coding of responses revealed six factors that influenced integration of technology:
(a) technology access and reliability, (b) time availability for teachers to integrate technology,
(c) teacher confidence to integrate technology into the curriculum, (d) professional development,
(e) impact on students’ learning, and (f) impact of administrator support on integration of tech-
nology into the curriculum. Findings suggested that teachers did not show high levels of peda-
gogical competency and had a lack of confidence and ability to integrate technology in the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 21
curriculum. Factors that influenced teacher perception and performance included a lack of ade-
quate technology focused on professional development, a lack of time given to practice integrat-
ing technology, and teachers not being convinced that integration of technology positively
affects student learning (Reel, 2009).
In the study “Using Technology in the Social Studies Classroom: The Journey of Two
Teachers,” Wright and Wilson (2009) explored factors influencing integration of technology in
the classroom. The question guiding the study was, “How can social studies teacher educators
promote technology integration?” Due to the emphasis on teaching and learning standards,
assessment, and data-driven decision making, Wright and Wilson claimed that it is important to
utilize technology effectively in the classroom (p. 133). The study was motivated by the research
finding that “teachers who were more successful in using technology were student-centered
teacher, were risk takers, and were willing to commit time outside the classroom (p. 135). This
study employed a qualitative case study approach. Data were collected via surveys and observa-
tions of two secondary social studies teachers.
Findings in the Wright and Wilson (2009) study suggested factors that influenced inte-
gration of technology in the classroom, including prior knowledge and experience acquired in
teacher educational programs, the teachers’ perception of technology use, time spent outside of
school planning inclusion of technology in lessons, school support, and access to technology
resources. A teacher’s prior knowledge of the use of technology may influence how and how
often technology is integrated in the curriculum. For instance, a teacher who is knowledgeable of
how to use the technology device is more likely to integrate it in the classroom. College teacher
preparation programs that emphasize use of technology may help to increase the continual inte-
gration of technology in future educational endeavors. Teachers’ background with technology
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 22
experience and beliefs, along with school support, affect the integration of technology in the
classroom.
In the study “Middle School Special Education Teachers’ Perception and Use of
Assistive Technology in Literacy Instruction,” Flanagan, Bouck, and Richardson (2013)
explored the potential benefits of using technology to improve student learning and access to the
curriculum for special education students. This study is relevant to this research in that K–12
classrooms may include students of diverse learning levels and abilities. General education
teachers are faced with the challenge of providing equal learning opportunities for all students.
The authors focused on middle school special education teachers’ perceptions of assistive tech-
nology (AT) during literacy instruction with students with disabilities. AT may include certain
software intended for students with disabilities or it may include common applications that many
students use, such as spell checking. Other examples are screen readers, speech-to-text, and word
prediction software (p. 29). The research questions were “How often and in what manner do
middle school special education teachers use AT?” “What are the perceptions of AT?” “What are
the perceived factors that encourage and hinder use?” “What are the reported needs and prepara-
tion of teach with AT?” This was a qualitative study in which participants were surveyed using a
20-item survey on research using technology in the classroom (p. 25).
Findings reported by Flanagan et al. (2013) indicated that teachers’ beliefs about the use
of technology to assist special education students were positive. Teachers acknowledged that
students respond well to technology. However, many admitted to not using the technology often
or at all. Barriers to the use of AT included lack of teacher self-confidence and knowledge in
using the technology. Educators lack knowledge of what types of AT are available, as well as
how to use it effectively (p. 28).
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 23
Technology has the potential to improve education for all students, however, educators
lack the knowledge as to how to apply it. Implications included providing training and in-
service opportunities for educators to become aware of and include assistive technology
in their curriculum. (p. 29)
The study confirms the gap between research and practice.
In the study “Teacher Beliefs and Technology Integration Practices: A Critical Relation-
ship,” Ertmer, Ottenbreitt-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) revisited the relation-
ship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in an effort to comprehend how educators enact their
beliefs in pedagogical decisions in the classroom (p. 425). The study cites work from Ertmer in
1999 on the two types of barriers affecting technology integration in the classroom. The barriers
are described as external and internal barriers. External barriers may include access to technol-
ogy resources, training, and school support (p. 423). Internal barriers refer to educators’ confi-
dence and beliefs regarding how students process information and learn, as well as the value that
teachers place on how technology helps in the teaching process (p. 423). The study suggests that,
for the most part, external barriers to technology integration have been significantly reduced in
many educational settings; however, “internal” or second-order barriers persist and “pose a
greater challenge” (p. 423). In an effort to provide better insights and strategies for technology
integration, the research focused on two questions: (a) How do the pedagogical beliefs and class-
room technology practices of teachers, recognized for their technology use, align? and (b) To
what extent do first-order barriers constrain teachers’ integration efforts, leading to potential
misalignment between beliefs and practice? (p. 425). The study used a case-study research
approach to examine pedagogical beliefs and technology practices of 12 exceptional K–12 class-
room teachers as determined by the International Society for Technology Education, Apple,
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 24
Disney, PBS, among others (p. 426). Data collected included interview responses and document
analyses of teachers’ websites (p. 425).
The study revealed that both external and internal factors were barriers to technology
integration. Internal factors had a slightly stronger response in that teachers still felt “intimidated
by technology” and/or lacked the knowledge and skills, and the time to learn technology
(p. 429). This in turn coincides with external barriers in which teachers felt a lack of administra-
tive and technical support remain external barriers. In examining the alignment among teachers’
beliefs and practices, teachers with positive beliefs used technology in their classrooms in ways
that gave students opportunities to collaborate and/or provided students with different project
choices. Students could choose to demonstrate their learning using various technology tools (p.
432).
The study suggests that changes made to the curriculum are driven by the current push to
prepare students for 21st-century skills (p. 433). Due to increased access to technology resources
and a call for teachers to incorporate technology in the curriculum, the results of the study have
implications for professional development. The researchers suggested that “administrators could
possibly assess teachers beliefs and work with them to provide specific resources to facilitate the
enactment of those beliefs” (p. 434). Administrators may play a role in providing guidance,
support, and resources. In addition, successful teachers in this study used student-centered prac-
tices. Professional development should help to develop student-centered practices and provide
evidence that these practices result in meaningful student learning outcomes (p. 424). Changes to
professional development may help in understanding and addressing external and/or internal
barriers to technology integration.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 25
In the study “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Barriers to Technology Integration and Prac-
tices With Technology Under Situated Professional Development,” Kopcha (2012) addressed the
gap between the amount of technology resources available in classrooms today and educators’
use of that technology for instructional practices (p. 1109). Citing prior studies, reasons for this
gap were found to be the result of external and internal barriers such as access, vision, beliefs,
time, and professional development (p. 1109). The purpose of the study was to examine common
barriers to technology integration under a program of sustained and situated professional devel-
opment (p. 1110). The context included a K–5 elementary school with 30 teachers and 600
students located in an upper-middle-class neighborhood. The professional development program
was complemented by the school being supplied with new technology tools, such that staff
members were assigned computers with
document camera and projector, the school was given a lab with thirty-two new comput-
ers and an interactive whiteboard, five mobile carts containing fifteen wireless laptop
computers each, online computer-based instruction available for all students, and district
technical support for three days a week. (p. 1111)
Eighteen teachers participated in the study. Using interviews, surveys, and observations, data
were collected to address three guiding research questions: (a) “How do teachers perceive the
common barriers to technology integration after engaging in a program of situated professional
development over a two-year period?” (b) “How do those perceptions change as teachers’ pro-
fessional development transitions from full-time mentoring to teacher-led communities of prac-
tice?” and (c) “What were teachers’ instructional practices under teacher-led communities of
practice and how do they relate to their perceptions of the barriers?” (p. 1110). Findings provided
insight to the teachers’ decision-making process for integrating technology in their classrooms.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 26
Teachers’ technology integration practices are heavily based on the level of support that they
receive, their own beliefs about using technology for learning, and their skills in using technol-
ogy instruction (p. 1112).
These findings coincide with other research studies. Positive aspects of the situated pro-
fessional development program included a mentoring and community approach to preparing
teachers to integrate technology. Having a fellow teacher as mentor played a role in promoting
positive beliefs about technology and practice. The decision to integrate technology in practice
was based on teachers’ internal beliefs, knowledge, and confidence. Although the teachers had
access to all new technology and support, they reported not having enough time to learn or prac-
tice using the technology with their students, which was considered a barrier. The study shows
that an organized schoolwide vision of technology integration, targeted professional develop-
ment, and a mentor approach to learning may play a key role in sharing teachers’ perceptions of
the common barriers across a school site.
Due to the increase in technology availability and focus today, students and teachers are
learning to accept and interact with it. This review of literature showed that technology tools and
resources available to educators are as diverse as their students. Information technology ranges
across laptops, software applications, Internet access and resources, and assistive technology.
Overall, the perception of technology integration is positive. Technology is everywhere and
changing, and K–12 educational settings embrace it. However, reviewed studies confirmed a gap
between research and practice. Although the technology resources are available, barriers such as
teachers’ knowledge, skills, confidence, and time affect their beliefs and their ability to integrate
technology in their practice.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 27
In many studies, findings showed that educators lacked the knowledge and technology
skills of how to work the technology and how to teach and apply it effectively in the classroom.
Even when professional development provides training, it is not significant enough to provide
educators with an authentic experience to improve educator confidence and the ability to apply
the knowledge effectively in the classroom. Teacher preservice programs, teachers’ background
with technology, mentor programs, and technology-oriented schoolwide professional develop-
ment goals may influence teachers’ beliefs about technology integration. In conclusion, the
review of literature in this section demonstrates that administrators and professional development
have the potential to address teachers’ “internal” barriers to technology integration and influence
their beliefs.
Benefits When Teachers Embrace Technology
The integration of technology in the classroom may support students in developing higher
level thinking and enhance the learning process. As an instructional tool for accessing infor-
mation, Brown and Brown (2010) presented that technology may help students to develop aca-
demic and social skills needed for the present and future world. Through performance-based
tasks and activities, students may connect their work in the classroom to real-world experiences.
The incorporation of collaborative problem- and performance-based tasks, students work
together to think and solve problems—skills needed in today’s world. Through these classroom
experiences, students achieve “a feeling of success and career awareness” (p. 52). Through the
promotion of technology to teach essential problem-solving and interpersonal skills, the integra-
tion of technology could help to prepare students for the future.
Technology education is a not a recent phenomenon. Technology education has existed
for several years, as well as the accompanying teaching and learning standards. In the study
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 28
“What Is Technology Education? A Review of the ‘Official Curriculum,’” Brown and Brown
(2010) reviewed the goals of technology education that may help in understanding how to inte-
grate technology in efforts to integrate technology practices in every classroom. The study
examined the goals of technology education. Technology literacy was described as the main goal
of technology education. Technology literacy was defined as the knowledge to be a “contributing
citizen for the world of today and tomorrow” (p. 50). This involves teaching social and collabo-
rative skills through engaging classroom experiences and problem-solving tasks. These tasks are
described as “hands-on” and “action-based” (p. 51). Finally, the continuation of technology edu-
cation is important due to the gap, which the study described as increasing, between “people who
use technology, average citizens and the inventors and designers who create technology” (p. 52).
The benefit of creating technology-literate students is that it may empower them to “explore
interests, achieve feeling of success, develop both problem-solving and interpersonal skills and
developing a broad sense of career awareness” (p. 52). The technology education curriculum
very much embodies teaching 21st-century skills and goals.
In order to achieve the goals of technology education and education technology and 21st-
century skills, educators may need to revisit or change current teaching and learning practices.
Taylor and Fratto (2012) defined change as “altering, making a different, or causing to pass from
one state to another” (p. 39). In the study “Using Technology to Support At-Risk Students’
Learning,” Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) reviewed more than 70 recent studies and concluded
that, if technology is used in thoughtful ways, students, specifically at-risk students, can make
substantial gains in learning and technology readiness. The learning outcomes for students may
range from affective (motivation) to behavioral (engagement) improvements. Using technology
in thoughtful ways suggests that students are given opportunities to create new content
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 29
themselves, rather than just being recipients of content designed by others, such as traditional
direct instructional practices. When educators accept new models of teaching, specifically the
teaching of 21st-century skills through integration of technology, this may lead to higher level
thinking and learning for diverse students. The following is a review of models that may facili-
tate this change.
Learner-Centered Model
The learner-centered model approach focuses on developing and implementing learning
tasks that make connections to the real world and are collaborative in nature. An and Reigeluth
(2011) described the learner-centered model, which focuses on developing “real-life skills, such
as collaborative, higher order thinking and problem-solving skills, [to] meet the complex needs
of the information age (p. 54). The learner-centered approach sees the teacher as a facilitator.
Tasks are predominantly group work or socially based and there is a need for less traditional
direct instruction. Tasks demand high expectations for all students, active engagement, and
increased student responsibility. Students use technology to collaborate and communicate in
authentic learning environment and tasks. In this approach to learning, students develop real-
world skills such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creative thinking, problem
solving, and decision making (p. 55).
Project-Based Learning
Project-based learning (PBL) is an example of the learner-centered model and may lead
to “long-term knowledge retention and satisfaction of students and teachers” (An & Reigeluth,
2011, p. 54). For example, Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) examined a case study in which a
high school team redesigned the entire school program by focusing on increasing student learn-
ing and engagement outcomes through PBL learning. Technology integration practices and tools
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 30
were used to support instruction. The school-wide PBL implementation included training teach-
ers to make pedagogical changes. The PBL model at the school included practices in which
students were constantly and ideally creating, practicing, and exploring as they worked to
complete assignments and lessons that required a variety of assessment tools. These tools ranged
from “blogging, participating in online forums and chats, podcasts, developing multimedia
presentations, designing and producing publications” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014, p. 13).
The focus of the activities was to keep students actively engaged in the learning process through
interactive activities, while also teaching content and other skills that students may apply in the
real world, such as future career endeavors.
Flip Classroom Model
The flip classroom model is an approach to integrate technology and help students to
acquire higher level thinking and learning experiences. Darling-Hammond et al. (2014)
described the flip classroom as an arrangement in which technology tools are used outside of
class to provide students with information that might normally be provided during direct instruc-
tion in the classroom. While in class, students use the time for discussion and collaborative work
and problem-based inquiry (p. 13). This approach is not widely used, but Darling-Hammond et
al. (2014) explained that a large body of research has found that collaborative and problem-based
learning tasks are positive tools in helping students to learn skills.
Project Learning Bicycle Model
Inspired by the work of noted Stanford University education researcher Linda Darling-
Hammond, Trilling and Fadel (2009) developed the project learning bicycle model. In their book
21st-Century Skills: Learning for Life in our Times, Trilling and Fadel (2009) described the
bicycle model as a four-phase protocol that requires extensive initial teacher planning. The four
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 31
steps are define, plan, do, and review. The bicycle is a visual device to remember the compo-
nents of a well-designed and well-managed learning project (p. 97). The wheels represent student
and teacher responsibility and their roles. The learning project is the bicycle frame and the
driving questions or problem are the handlebars. Students and teachers work together to coordi-
nate the project and move it forward (p. 100). Once the project has begun, a “successful ride”
will include a well-defined project; students have project phases to manage, as does the teacher,
and they co-manage the running of all phases of the project smoothly. Similarly to PBL, the
teacher plays a facilitator role and direct instruction is used only when needed. Students do most
of the work and think in collaborative ways. Projects such as PBL and the bicycle model allow
students to exercise 21st-century skills such as “problem solving, communication, collaboration,
information and ICT literacy, flexibility and adaptability, self-directions, leadership, and respon-
sibility” (p. 103). This model is a way to integrate technology in an effort to teach 21st-century
skills in well-developed and -defined student-centered learning tasks.
Blended Learning
Technology tools alone do not lead to higher levels of teaching and learning. Studies
examining blended learning have shown more meaningful learning experiences when students
are encouraged to work collaboratively and use technology that provides authentic real-world
connections (So & Brush, 2008). The push to integrate technology in K–12 is also represented in
higher education (Wu, Tennyson, & Hsia, 2010). It is relevant to examine the effects of technol-
ogy integration practices and computer-mediated communication tools in other educational set-
tings, as they could play a role in K–12 technology integration policies. Blended learning is
defined as a “learning approach that combines different delivery method and styles of learning”
(Wu et al., 2010, p. 156). Similar to the flip classroom model, the blended learning approach
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 32
gives students opportunities for both online and offline interaction and collaboration with others
(So & Brush, 2008, pp. 321, 322). Blended learning teaching practices may include using a vari-
ety of instructional technology devices such as web-based learning to deliver instruction (Wu et
al., 2010). In the study “Student Perceptions of Collaborative Learning, Social Presence and
Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and Critical Factors,” So and
Brush (2008) suggested that technology use in blended learning environments produces signifi-
cant results when lesson designs require students to engage in discussion and to collaborate on
projects. Projects should include authentic and problem-based tasks to help the students to see
the real-life connection and relevance to their learning (pp. 328, 329).
Technology is considered a method or tool by which to approach the challenge of teach-
ing and learning a new generation of “technology natives” or information-age students. Studies
on online computer-based courses show that student satisfaction and learning happen when col-
laborative group projects are required and authentic real-world project-based activities are
required. Technology literacy skills are considered a requirement in the current world. The use of
technology tools may facilitate tasks and activities in which students are engaged in creating,
communicating, and collaborating. The actual use of technology by students may authenticate
the task. Students see a connection to real life, which may lead to increased learning and
engagement.
Higher Order Thinking Skills
In the study “Using a Technology-Enriched Environment to Improve Higher-Order
Thinking Skills,” Hopson, Simms, and Knezek (2001) investigated the effect of a technology-
enriched classroom on student development of higher order thinking skills and student attitudes
toward computers (p. 110). Motivation for the study resulted from the future needs argument
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 33
stemming from current advocacy for teaching higher level skills required for today and the
future. To address this gap requires restructuring the school learning environment. This will
require changing everything from classroom settings, teaching and learning tools, curriculum,
and training, among other things (p. 109). Most important, the shift toward higher level thinking
will include using technology as tools for meaningful projects (p. 109). In this study, achieving
higher level thinking was described as higher order thinking skills and was defined as “cognitive
skills that allow students to function at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of Bloom’s
taxonomy” (p. 110). The restructuring of the classroom will include use of technology in col-
laborated and student-centered tasks, such as in PBL models. Citing earlier work, the researchers
found that achievement of higher order thinking skills is best achieved when learners construct
and create knowledge rather than obtain it through direct instruction methods. Information-
gathering tools, such as technology, are used to engage the learner and promote questioning and
decision making. Assignments and projects are collaborative and inspire positive interactions and
social skills. Student learning is assessed in new and diverse ways using multiple measures,
“rather than simple recall of facts” (p. 1110).
Studying fifth- and sixth-grade students in a suburban school district, Hopson et al.
(2001) used a posttest and quasi-experimental design to investigate academic and attitudinal
effects of technology rich classrooms. Although limited by the characteristics of the participant
population, findings suggested that “creation of a technology-enriched classroom environment
appears to have had a minimal but positive effect on student acquisition of higher order thinking
skills” (p. 114). A significant finding was that teachers reported that learning was more student
centered and less teacher and textbook driven in the technology-enriched classroom compared to
the traditional classroom. The educators reported that the technology environment facilitated
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 34
change in pedagogy. Teaching practices included “cooperative groups and student participation
focused on application rather than knowledge acquisition” (p. 116). In addition, the students
individually created projects and task and group projects replaced tests and homework as forms
of assessments (p. 116). The presence of technology was a catalyst for helping to restructure the
teaching and learning process. As teachers designed technology-enhanced individual and group
project-based tasks, the teacher became a guide and facilitator and students became more
engaged and began to manage their learning. This new classroom dynamic allowed the teacher to
shift from deliverer of facts to a guide who “encouraged the students to use the computer as a
tool for problem solving and decision making” (p. 117). This study highlighted arguments for the
integration of technology to teach 21st-century skills, using elements of student-centered learn-
ing models.
Based on the review of studies in this section, technology is an effective tool to provide
students with real-life connections and enhance learning experiences. Technology tools provide
today’s “digital natives” with a “wealth of always-on self-service tools for researching and
learning online” (Trilling & Fadel, 2009, p. 78). Technology may empower students to become
self-reliant and independent learners and workers. Combined with structured and well-defined
student-centered learning practices and projects, technology may facilitate the teaching of 21st-
century skills. When teachers embrace technology, all students, significantly at-risk students,
have the potential to benefit from technology that is meant to promote high levels of interactivity
and engagement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014, p. 9). Technology integration allows students
to develop communication and working skills required in a 21st-century world. Students with a
range of learning styles and levels also have the opportunity to be assessed in a variety of ways
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 35
by demonstrating content that they have created versus information and facts that they have been
traditionally taught to remember and regurgitate.
Access to Technology
“Frankly, all the computers and software and Internet connections in the world won’t do
much good if young people do not understand that access to new technology means . . . access to
the new economy” (President Clinton, as cited in Cuban, Kilpatrick, & Peck, 2001, p. 816).
Access to technology resources, such as hardware and software instructional programs
and/or applications used by educators and students, influences integration of technology in the
teaching and learning process. Besides access to technology tools, Trilling and Fadel (2009)
explained that other elements are also important in the support of 21st-century teaching and
learning (p. 139). These elements include the classroom learning environment itself. The class-
room should provide space for “project work, group presentations, individual study and research,
teamwork at a computer, performance spaces, labs and workshops for experiments and design
projects, and areas for sports and recreation” should be considered in creating 21st-century
school designs (p. 140). The teaching and learning infrastructure will play a significant role in
the handling and management of digital learning tools and devices with “always-on access to the
broadband Internet” being as important as “electricity, lighting, and running water” (p. 142).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) claimed that, in all successful technology integration learning
outcomes, students had access to technology tools with sufficient bandwidth Internet access to
support student learning and work.
In the study “Using Technology to Support at-Risk Students’ Learning,” Darling-
Hammond et al. (2014) examined the gap between low-socioeconomic groups and technology
use, as well as the effect on the learning environment as it applies to integrating technology to
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 36
teach 21st-century skills. The study found low ownership and Internet access across socioeco-
nomic groups. Findings suggested that only 64% of Hispanic teens owned a computer in 2012, as
compared to 81% of White teens. Significantly, teachers in high-poverty schools were more
likely to report that the lack of access to technology was a challenge in the classroom. In a
striking finding and challenge to the goal of integrating technology for teaching 21
st
-century
skills “70% of public K–12 schools” did not have the ability to provide equal technology
resources, such as broadband, to allow students to partake in digital learning simultaneously
(p. 3). The study found that, in successful learning outcomes, students had access to one-to-one
computing opportunities. One-to-one access is described as one device available for each
student. Implications for technology integration policies included taking into account providing
one-to-one computer access to students and ensuring speedy Internet connections to prevent
users from experiencing issues when partaking in digital learning (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2014).
In the study, “Does the Digital Divide Matter More? Comparing the Effects of New
Media and Old Media Use on the Education-Based Knowledge Gap,” Wei and Hindman (2011)
distinguished between technology access and technology use. Technology access was classified
as technical and social access. Technical access was described as the physical availability of
technology and social access to represent professional knowledge, economic resources, and
technical skills required for effective use of technology (p. 218). The researchers claimed that
access to technology resources had declined over the years. For instance, more people have
access to technology tools but today’s “digital divide” has less to do with access to technology
tools and more to do with the knowledge and skills that people have to use the technology in
ways that may improve their lives (p. 216). For example, the study findings implied that, if the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 37
technology device or “Internet is used as a toy rather than as a tool, it may not enhance the user’s
life changes” (p. 218). Socioeconomic status may be associated with the types of online and
technology use activities, for example, “sending email; searching for financial, political, or gov-
ernment information; and banking online” (p. 219). These activities are categorized as “capital-
enhancing” versus using technology for entertainment purposes (p. 219). The insight brought by
this study was a need for schools, specifically in low-socioeconomic urban areas, to teach profes-
sional skills associated with technology use so students may learn to access and use technology
in their lives and future.
However, in the study “No Use, No Impact: Snapshot Surveys of Educational Technol-
ogy in K–12,” Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, and Soloway (2003) noted a lack of access to technology
tools for the majority of teachers in the United States. The study showed a strong correlation
between access to technology and its use in the classroom. This exemplifies the need to provide
schools with appropriate technology access to measure its impact on student learning.
In the study “High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms
Explaining an Apparent Paradox,” Cuban et al. (2001) examined teachers in two Silicon Valley
high schools who integrated technology in daily instruction (p. 815). Twenty-one teachers and 26
students in both schools who volunteered to be part of the study were interviewed. In addition,
12 students in both schools were shadowed as they went through their day. The researchers
claimed that, even though educators have physical access to technology access at home and in
educational settings, nationally, most teachers’ and students’ use continues to be occasional or
these machines are not used in the classroom for instruction (p. 815). Furthermore, the study
confirmed previous studies that found that, even when educators use computers, they use them to
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 38
“maintain rather than alter existing classroom practices” (p. 815). Educators may not be using
technology in innovative or transformative ways.
Findings in the study also showed less-than-significant changes in teaching. Teachers at
the schools planned more efficiently, communicated with colleagues via email, and secured
information from the Internet, and students benefited from having direct access to information
(p. 824). Only 4 of 13 teachers reported significant changes in teaching. For example, these
teachers adapted student-centered practices, “they lectured less relied more on securing infor-
mation from sources other than textbook, gave students independence, and acted more like a
coach than performer on stage” (p. 824). Overall, however, the study concluded that there was
little evidence of student-altering instruction even when technology was available (p. 825). Bar-
riers to higher levels of technology integration practices were speculated to be time, training,
teachers’ beliefs and personal use, and technology reliability. Teachers who used the technology
reported that they did not have time to find and evaluate software and that training was generic
and irrelevant to their specific needs (p. 826). Even when technology was implemented, learning
was interrupted due to “inadequate wiring, servers crashing, and constant replacement of obso-
lete software and machines,” which resulted in non-use of the technology. To reduce barriers to
technology integration, the study suggested changing how schools are “organized, how time is
allocated, and how teachers are prepared” (p. 830). Similar to Trilling and Fadel (2009), restruc-
turing elements of the overall school-learning environment was recommended to accommodate
successful integration of technology. Furthermore, the study identified hardware, software, and
telecommunication companies to improve product reliability, provide schools with technology
support for teachers, and reduce cost to schools for increased Internet connection speed (p. 830).
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 39
Support of Technology Use
Support of technology use is essential in determining whether educators will have the
knowledge and skills to integrate technology in the curriculum effectively. Studies show a gap in
effective technology training and evaluation. Flanagan et al. (2013) found that, “while services
and trainings do exist to provide information, such programs may not adequately prepare teach-
ers to use assistive technology during instruction, but instead focus on how to use an actual tech-
nology” (p. 28). Although several professional development programs exist to provide educators
with adequate training and support, there is a lack of research indicating their effectiveness in
translating to significant higher level student learning outcomes. Available studies report char-
acteristics of meaningful professional development, as well as barriers to implementation. For
example, in the study, “Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms: K–12
Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support Needs,” An and Reigeluth (2011) high-
lighted characteristics of professional development that may help to improve teachers’ beliefs
and perceptions about technology implementation. Implication sections for the study suggested
that professions development programs allocate time for hands-on practice, be subject specific,
and focus training on learner-centered instruction. Teacher training and workshops should
provide teachers with modeling of desired practices rather than telling them how to create
technology-enhanced learner-centered classrooms. In addition, the study recommended adding a
collaborative aspect, such as building communities of practice or social networks, to improve
teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of technology integration.
Trilling and Fidel (2009) supported the notion of professional development that is col-
laborative and grounded in a teacher’s own questions, problems, issues, and challenges (p. 139).
They claimed that successful school support programs will include continued support by
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 40
modeling practices and providing coaching and mentoring in support of teacher skill building
and confidence. The following subsections provide examples of professional development
programs inspired by these characteristics.
Case Development Model
In the study “Promoting Urban Teachers’ Understanding of Technology, Content, and
Pedagogy in the Context of Case Development,” Mouza (2011) claimed that low-level uses of
technology can be significantly attributed to a lack of high-quality professional development
programs for teachers. The study examined the effects of a case development approach to profes-
sional development, described as an approach that allows teacher to design, enact, and reflect on
teaching practices in their classrooms. The goal is for teachers to identify and create records of
practice to share with other teachers. Mouza (2011) claimed that this approach may help to chal-
lenge barriers such as previous values, assumptions, and pedagogical strategies. Inspiration for
this model was built on the framework of TPACK and the conceptual foundation that teachers
can be supported in learning to teach with technology by providing opportunities to study and
reflect on their classroom experiences and those of their colleagues through case development,
discussion, and analysis.
Mouza’s (2011) study focused on a group of elementary teachers in three urban charter
schools in an effort to identify ways in which case development can advance teacher learning.
Funded by the State Department of Education, participants attended a summer institute and con-
tinued the program months afterward in several phases. During the summer, several technology
tools that could be integrated into various content subjects were demonstrated to the teachers.
The demonstrations included use of computer tools and applications and hands-on activities and
collaborative work and concluded with discussion of the implications that demonstrated
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 41
applications have on teaching and learning (p. 6). In the second stage of the program, teachers
developed a technology-integrated plan to address problems identified in the first stage. In the
third stage, the teachers enacted their technology integration plans in their classrooms and col-
lected relevant student artifacts. They also attended monthly meetings where they shared suc-
cesses and challenges. In the last stage, the teachers wrote a case report based on the cycle of
preparation, enactment, and reflection of the technology-integrated plan in their classrooms (p.
7). Results from the study demonstrated that case development enabled teachers to build connec-
tions among components of TPACK. Although the teachers reported various levels of success,
they reported having gained deep knowledge and understanding. Mouza (2011) suggested that
teachers may need repeated classroom practice with technology before they can achieve
enhanced results. The case development model may help to address individual challenges and
barriers to technology integration as it provides teachers with opportunities to reflect on their
technology-integrated experiences.
Quality Teaching and Learning (QTL) Model
In the study “Technology as a Catalyst for Change: The Role of Professional Develop-
ment,” Matzen and Edmunds (2007) supported the claim that teachers are mostly using technol-
ogy in ways that reinforce their existing instructional practices, instead of adopting new
transformational student-centered practices. The researchers claimed that, using technology-
based student-centered professional development programs, teachers will be more likely to alter
their instructional practices to better serve the needs of students. Matzen and Edmunds (2007)
examined the QTL model, which was administered as a 7-day, 50-hour professional development
program that modeled the relevance between instruction and the use of technology. The study
involved more than one school. Teachers assumed the role of students, modeling the strategies
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 42
rather than just being told about them. The last 2 days of the program involved reflection and
support. Teachers and administrators from both schools worked collaboratively to reflect,
support, and address challenges or barriers.
Quantifying Uncertainty and Analyzing Numerical Trends (QUANT) Model
In the study “Professional Development in Statistics, Technology, and Cognitively
Demanding Tasks: Classroom Implementation and Obstacles,” Foley, Khoshaim, Alsaeed, &
Nihan Er (2012) investigated QUANT, a yearlong program that began with a 2-week summer
institute and continued with follow-up workshops and ongoing support throughout the school
year (p. 178). The program involves interactive cycles, beginning with a backward design that
starts by identifying project goals and professional development goals, and moving toward
objectives for participant learning (p. 178). Similar to the QTL model, QUANT professional
development is “designed to improve teachers technology pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)” (p. 179) in an effort to improve student learning. The exploratory study showed that
teachers “embraced professional development that blends content with pedagogy” (p. 182). The
study identified positive characteristics of professional development that included activities in
which participants were “actively engaged in cognitively demanding activities” (p. 182) that
positively influenced teaching practices. Based to its and collaborative elements, the researchers
reported that QUANT might help to meet challenges associated with teachers’ beliefs.
Who Took My Chalk? Model
The who took my chalk? model is a professional development implementation model
created by teachers and recommended by Taylor and Fratto (2012). Its basis is a business
approach to making large changes in organizations (p. 30). This model includes multiple steps or
phases through which schools can progress as they implement change. The eight-step model
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 43
includes (a) recognizing the need or desire to change, (b) assessing the school culture and per-
sonal attitudes, (c) setting and achieving 21st-century goals, (d) communicating clearly, (e) pre-
dicting possible roadblocks, (f) engaging support, (g) making content real in the classroom, and
(h) Creating and finalizing a plan for success (p. 31). Schools may follow the steps of the model
at their own pace and in a way that is customized to fit their specific needs (p. 30). This model
includes elements of pedagogy and curriculum-enhancing practices.
In the study “Comparing Technology-Related Teacher Professional Development
Designs: A Multilevel Study of Teacher and Student Impact,” Walker et al. (2012) examined two
professional development approaches to helping teachers to gain knowledge and implement
technology in the classroom in order to improve student learning. In the first technology-related
teacher professional development (TTPD), teachers focused on integrating new technology skills
with known pedagogy strategies (tech only); in the second TTPD, teachers paired technology
skills with new pedagogy and PBL (tech + pbl; p. 422). In this quasi-experimental study, the
impact of TTPD occurred in a large suburban school district in the western United States with
75,000 students (p. 425). The goals for both designs were a focus on (a) finding online resources,
(b) designing activities for students using Instructional Architecture (IA) and (c) implementing
IA projects in the classroom. IA is a free web-based tool that allows teachers to search for learn-
ing resources and create and store instructional activities (Walker et al., 2012, p. 424). For tech +
pbl, there was additional learning to design inquiry-oriented activities goals (p. 426). Using a
different facilitator to develop workshops, the two professional development sessions were
implemented as a series of three face-to face training sessions with in-between classroom appli-
cation and follow-up activities, organized over 3 months (p. 426). “Each teacher had access to
Internet, a TTPD curriculum guide, the IA, search engines, and online resources” (p. 427). To
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 44
collect teacher experience data, the study used pre/post surveys. Results showed that teachers in
both TTPD designs benefited, specifically in gaining knowledge construct (p. 437). Teachers
gained “technology knowledge as well as integrated forms of pedagogical content knowledge
and technological-pedagogical content knowledge” (p. 437). The study added to previous
research in that changes to professional development focusing on integration of technology may
result in changes in teachers’ attitudes and practices.
The review of literature in this section identified various teacher training and support
models for integrating technology. Several characteristics of professional development may lead
to increased knowledge and beliefs held by teachers; however, more research is needed to inves-
tigate the impact on student learning and to determine whether these models lead to significant
transformational teaching practices and changes. More research is needed to understand profes-
sional development strategies, such as TTPD, on student learning. Barriers that persist include
time and equipment. Even when teachers are supplied with access and technology tools, the
technology itself may be faulty, outdated, and slow. Even when pedagogical and learner-centered
practices are the focus of professional development, time needed for practice may be an issue.
However, characteristics of professional development that include collaborative learning com-
munities, ongoing training and support, and modeling of strategies may lead to transformative
teaching. Professional development and support for teachers are significant in integration of
technology and teaching of 21st-century skills. “Teachers are the front line in this change, and
they must have the knowledge, skills, and support to be effective 21st century teachers” (Trilling
& Fadel, 2009, p. 136).
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 45
Pedagogy
Educators often use a constructivist approach when integrating technology in curriculum
to create an enhanced student-centered classroom. In the study “Technology Integration in an
Elementary Classroom: Its Impact on Teaching and Learning,” Popejoy (2003) described the
constructivist teacher as one who holds learner-centered teaching beliefs. A constructivist teacher
guides students, who do most of the work and attempt to make connection and make sense of the
world. In addition, a constructivist teacher is willing to spend “large amount of time on a single
curriculum area so that the children can become thoroughly familiar with it” (p. 8). Traditional
curriculum designs have teachers rushing through information and facts in a direct instruction
approach to meet pacing plans. In a constructivist approach to teaching and learning, students are
involved in activities that guide them to be engaged, collaborate, create, solve problems, and
communicate.
In the study “Technology Integration Applied to Project-Based Learning in Science,”
ChanLin (2008) stated that a common goal of constructivist teachers is to “support intrinsic
motivation and self directed learning in a meaningful context” (p. 55) and the learning activities
play a significant role in inspiring these behaviors. ChanLin claimed that students are failing to
make meaningful connections between what they are learning and the real world. This is a result
of teachers failing to design learning activities to facilitate broader and higher level learning.
Citing prior research, the author recommended that teachers use “technology integration to
promote inquiry, problem-solving, and critical thinking” (p. 56). To understand a constructivist
teaching and learning approach, the researcher “observed the process of integrating technology
into scientific project-based learning among students” (p. 56). Participants included students in
fifth grades in Taiwan who participated in a science camp. Because the students were expected to
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 46
use technology as a tool for learning, they were first taught basic information skills, such as use
of various online materials and applications (p. 57). Next, the students were expected to work
collaboratively by participating in a cyber community, where they shared information and inter-
acted with other schools. The students also learned hands-on laboratory skills, such as how to
test water pH (p. 57). Finally, the students presented their assigned projects by using computers
for “searching information, selecting information, integrating information, and preparing this for
the presentation” (p. 57). Technology was a tool for gaining information and communicating
their findings. Using a qualitative research approach, this study gathered interview responses,
observation notes, and students’ creative work in their science projects to understand the learning
process. Results showed that the students who participated in PBL reported a positive learning
experience. Student learning outcomes were observed as the students produced their own
knowledge from their own investigations and exploration (p. 63). Strategies used by teachers
reflected characteristics of the Trilling and Fadel (2009) project learning bicycle model, where as
“both the teacher and students made conceptual advances by exchanging view and working
towards a new understanding of knowledge” (p. 63), and learner and teacher joined in discover-
ing new knowledge. Due to the positive learning outcomes observed in the study, ChanLin
(2008) suggested inclusion of technology tools to guide learning. Students benefited from the use
of technology as it helped them to become aware of their own “knowledge construction from the
science project” (p. 63).
In the study “Effective Learning Outcomes of ESL Elementary and Secondary School
Students Utilizing Educational Technology Infused With Constructivist Pedagogy,” Lee (2006)
examined the potential of educational technology combined with constructivist pedagogical
practices in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms. Participants included two teachers
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 47
from Indian River Central School District in New York. Participants were chosen due to the exit
rates of ESL students in the district, length of time that technology had been in place, and teach-
ers’ expertise in ESL instruction and training in technology. It is significant to mention that
Indian River Central School District has a strong commitment to integration of technology in the
ESL program, as it grants ESL teachers the opportunity to receive continued support through
inservice workshops and guidance by curriculum specialists.
The teachers in Lee’s (2006) study utilized constructivist approach activities and prac-
tices. Students used computers to work individually and collaboratively. When students encoun-
tered a problem, teachers encouraged them to ask peers for assistance. They facilitated students
by asking open-ended questions and allowed students’ responses to guide their lessons. Through
open-ended questions, open-dialogue format, and predicting and reinforcement activities, this
learning environment encouraged student thinking, self-confidence, and engagement. Lee (2006)
explained that research has shown the potential for technology to assist all students in their
learning but most schools do not integrate technology in the curriculum. This study suggested
that a plausible solution is increased teacher support and training. The Indian River Central
School District invested resources to support teachers in developing technology integration skills
and constructivist pedagogical activities.
TPACK Framework
School programs integrating technology may be designed using guiding conceptual
frameworks such as the TPACK model. Building on Shulman’s description of pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK), Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed TPACK. In the article “What
Is Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge?” Koehler and Mishra claimed that TPACK is
critical to effective teaching with technology (p. 60). The framework is described as a complex
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 48
interaction among three bodies of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. Content
knowledge (CK) is described is the teacher’s knowledge about the subject matter to be taught.
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is the teacher’s deep knowledge about the processes and practices
or methods of teaching and learning. This pedagogical knowledge type requires comprehension
of cognitive, social, and developmental theories of how students learn and how these theories can
be applied in the classroom (p. 64). Technology knowledge (TK) is more difficult to define
because it is always changing due to new technology. Using the description by the Committee of
Information Technology Literacy of the National Research Council, Koehler and Mishra (2009)
defined TK as the way someone “understand[s] technology broadly enough to apply it produc-
tively at work and in their everyday lives, to recognize when information technology can assist
or impede the achievement of a goal” (p. 64). The TPACK framework and its knowledge com-
ponents are illustrated in Figure 1.
Koehler and Mishra (2009) recognized the difficulty in teaching with technology and
stated that there is no single solution that may be applied to every teacher and every educational
setting. However, the solution “lies in the ability of a teacher to flexibly navigate the spaces
defined by the three elements of content pedagogy and technology” (p. 66). There is a responsi-
bility for teachers to acquire significant knowledge in the three key areas (TK, PK, and CK), as
well as understand how these domains interrelate so they can create or construct solutions (p.
66). Koehler and Mishra suggested that the goal of TPACK is to help teachers to understand and
describe the types of knowledge that they need so they may be in a position to integrate
technology in the classroom (p. 67).

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 49

Figure 1. The TPACK framework and its knowledge components.

SAMR Model
The SAMR model is a framework for evaluating mLearning. In the study “The SAMR
Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning,” Romrell et al. (2014) presented a definition
of mLearning and recommended the SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning,
facilitating the designs of mLearning activities, and supporting a transformation of learning (p.
1). The authors defined mLearning as “learning that is personalized, situated, and connected
through the use of a mobile device” (p. 2). Examples of mobile devices may include “phones,
smartphone, tablets, and even small laptop computers” (p. 3). Ruben R. Puentedura developed
the SAMR model in 2006 for the purpose of encouraging educators to enhance learning envi-
ronments through technology integration. The SAMR model consist of four levels of technology
integration (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition). The technology provides
a substitution for other learning activities without functional change. Augmentation is how the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 50
technology provides a substitution for other learning activities but with functional improvements.
Modification is the way in which technology allows the learning activity to be redesigned.
Redefinition describes the way in which technology allows for creation of tasks that could not
have been done without the use of the technology (p. 4). The framework identifies “learning
activities that fall with in the substitution and augmentation classifications are said to enhance
learning, while activities that fall within the modification and redefinitions classification are said
to transform learning” (p. 5). This is significant in identifying higher levels of teaching and
learning practices. Furthermore, in redefinition, the authors found that participants were engaged
in activities that produced meaningful learning and written essays. This suggests that technology
was used to assist in creation and deeper understanding of information. The authors suggested
that the SAMR model may provide a framework for instructional designers to evaluate
mLearning activities in an effort to identify how well they meet the goal of transformative
learning through the use of a mobile device (p. 5).
Applying the constructivist approach when integrating technology in the curriculum may
guide educators in the creation of an enhanced student-centered classroom. Frameworks such as
TPACK have been designed to guide educators in creating technology-enriched learner-centered
classrooms. Furthermore, program evaluation frameworks such as the SAMR model may help to
clarify and distinguish modest changes to pedagogical teaching practices to produce enhanced
meaningful learning experiences.
Current Practice
In the study “Digital Didactical Designs: Teachers’ Integration of iPads for Learning-
Centered Processes,” Jahnke and Kumar (2014) illustrated how didactical designs and teaching
strategies may be of use to teachers and administrators who are considering integration of mobile
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 51
devices such as iPads. Due to their relatively easy-to-use functionality and ability to run multiple
applications, schools have invested in mobile devices despite the lack of empirical research about
the impact on teaching and learning. Citing previous research, proponents of iPads cite students’
ability to interact physically with texts and transform them or personalize them to understand
them better. Similarly, teachers can differentiate and individualize instruction for students.
Challenges found in previous research included “difficulties with finding appropriate applica-
tions for use in the classroom, students being distracted by the multi-features of iPads, the
management of iPads and professional development” (p. 81).
The context of Jahnke and Kumar’s (2014) study was a Denmark municipality that
implemented iPads in all seven of its schools. All teachers and students were assigned iPads.
This study gathered interviews and observation data from 15 teachers who used the iPads for
teaching and learning in 15 classrooms K–9. Questions driving the research were “How do the
teachers use the iPads in the classroom? Specifically what different kinds of digital didactical
design do the teachers apply in their classroom?” and “For what purpose do the teachers use
iPads? What learning outcomes do they expect?” The authors clarified the term didactical design
to mean “a design that focuses on fostering student learning aka pedagogical approach” (Jahnke
& Kumar, 2014, p. 82).
Findings reported by Jahnke and Kumar (2014) confirmed that technology tools used
with constructivist student-centered approaches to teaching and learning led to enhanced learn-
ing. For example, the digital didactical designs used by teachers demonstrated a focus on pro-
duction or creation by students rather than information consumption. Teachers saw learning as a
process and encouraged peer feedback and provided collaborative reflections on student work.
To encourage collaboration, discussion, and exploration, teachers used various applications for
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 52
students to share their learning process and products to learn from each other. Findings suggested
that mobile devices such as iPads have the potential for “artifact creation, peer collaboration, and
collaborative feedback” (p. 87). The iPad used with didactical designs, enhanced student learn-
ing. Jahnke and Kumar recommended that mobile devices be integrated into the curriculum in
ways that enhance learning. This may be fostered through professional development and teacher
education programs that model similar integration of mobile devices. The study adds to existing
research in which student-centered pedagogical beliefs and practices lead to enhanced learning
experiences when combined with certain technology tools, such as iPads. More research is
needed.
In the study “Cloud-Based Collaborative Writing and the Common Core Standards,”
Yim, Warschauer, Zheng, and Lawrence (2014) examined “how a district-wide implementation
of Google Docs may help students meet the ELA literacy standards of the Common Core” (p.
245). Due to the new Common Core Standards adapted by 46 states, technology-based writing
practices through collaboration, presentation, and publication are stressed. To accommodate the
new technology standards, the “use of cloud-based technology has become increasingly popular”
(p. 243). The study used a mix-methods approach. Four middle schools in Grades 6–8 in a
suburban Colorado school district were included. The district had previously implemented a
laptop initiative called Inspired Writing. Under this program,
each student in the program was provided with a low-cost netbook computer and open
source software for use in English language arts (ELA) classroom . . . . the district transi-
tioned into a district-wide implementation of Google apps for education as an additional
part of the laptop program in the 2011-2012 academic year. (p. 245)
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 53
Data collection included interviews, surveys, review documents, and observations. The study
used a quantitative analysis of student work and qualitative analysis of student and teacher inter-
views and surveys.
Yim et al. (2014) found that both teachers and students had positive perceptions about
including Google Docs in their learning. ELA teachers encouraged students to engage in peer
review of writing and provide feedback. Google Docs was accessible to students both at school
and home. “Google Docs appear to be effective in supporting the continuity of writing and revi-
sion because of its accessibility from any location and frequent opportunities for exchanging
feedback” (p. 249). The study suggested potential benefits of using Google Docs for promotion
of literacy. Success depended on a gradual release of technology integration, district-wide vision,
and adequate support and training. The proper “technical support and professional development
contribute to successful implementation” (p. 253). Effectiveness was attributed to previous
training and gradual implementation to a larger-scale application. Access to technology tools
included physical devices and adequate learning of software. These tools were used in a peda-
gogical constructivist approach, which then led to learner-centered outcomes.
Summary and Critique of the Literature
Common themes found in the literature show that factors such as school support, tech-
nology resources, and teachers’ beliefs may affect successful implementation and integration of
technology in the classroom. The review of literature showed that professional development
might play a significant influence in how educators gain pedagogical knowledge and confidence
to integrate technology in the classroom. The second factor influencing integration of technology
by teachers is access to technology resources. For example, access to technology in the class-
room, access to a personal desktop or laptop, and access to a school computer lab may contribute
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 54
to easier integration of technology in the curriculum. The third factor contributing to integration
of technology in the classroom may be teachers’ perceptions. For example, a teacher’s prior
knowledge of the use of technology may influence how and how often technology is integrated
in the curriculum. For instance, a teacher who is knowledgeable of how to use the technology
device may be more likely to integrate it in the classroom. College teacher preparation programs
the encourage student teachers to use technology may help to increase continual integration of
technology in future educational endeavors.
Although districts may be providing some form of technology professional development,
this review of literature showed that teachers might still be experiencing anxiety and a lack of
confidence about integrating technology in the classroom and instruction. The lack of positive
beliefs about how technology affects student achievement may also influence successful integra-
tion of technology in the classroom. Factors such as the level of school support by administra-
tion, access to technology resources, and lack of teachers’ knowledge and negative perceptions
may serve as barriers to integration of technology in the classroom. Adopting classroom, school-
wide, or even district-wide technology integration goals, in addition to technology integration
pedagogical knowledge training, may lead to enhanced student learning.
Most schools currently use technology in modest ways or inadvertently support existing
traditional teaching practices. Several studies have been conducted to explain small changes in
student learning to transformative practices leading to increased student learning.
Studies suggest the majority of classroom involved in Type 1 or incrementalist uses, in
which technology makes traditional strategies such as rote memorization, drill and prac-
tice, or lecture, faster more efficient, or otherwise convenient. Type 2 or transformational
use in which teachers use technology in innovative ways that are authentic, purposeful,
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 55
and supportive of higher level thinking, are more infrequent but growing in number when
comparing results of early studies to more recent ones. (Dawson, 2012, p. 117)
Previous studies have clearly defined barriers to integration of technology. These com-
plex dynamics include teachers’ beliefs, access, school support, teacher training, and profes-
sional development. There is an array of technology tools in the market that grows daily, with
availability of new information and innovations. Due to the new set of 21st-century skills
required to be contributing members in a technology-based economy, it is significant for educa-
tional organizations to adapt the learning environment to meet the needs of students in a 21st-
century world. Trilling and Fadel (2009) stated that the challenge for schools and teachers is to
know how to “apply the right tool for the right learning task from the wildly expanding list of
learning technologies and tools” (p. 142). 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. The
goal of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating
and implementing technology in the curriculum. There is a gap in the literature in understanding
effective and active practices for technology integration in K–12 schools. This qualitative case
study focused on gaining information about transformational practices associated with school-
wide technological integration policies and how they affect teaching and learning.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 56
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
This chapter presents a description of the research questions, research design, population
and sampling, instrumentation, and data analyses for the study. The purpose of the study was to
investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating and implementing technol-
ogy in its curriculum and instruction. In an effort to gain insight into transformational practices
associated with the use of technology, this study examined the teaching and learning environ-
ment and educational policies at a specific school site.
In the past decade and a half, access to technology has increased significantly in K–12
schools. However, research indicates that the actual usage of technology in most classrooms
involves low levels of cognitive demand, such as administrative tasks, drill, and practice. Most
students are immersed in rich digital worlds outside of their schools; however, most learn in a
traditional teacher-centered methods learning environment, which may be detrimental to student
engagement and learning. This study was designed to investigate how a school that was identi-
fied as embracing technology uses professional development, resources, funding, and so forth to
integrate and implement technology in curriculum and instruction. Data collection was con-
ducted via surveys and interviews of instructional staff, document analysis, and classroom and
campus observations. The data were triangulated to determine potential impacts on teaching and
learning from the school’s technology adoption efforts.
Research questions were designed to provide descriptive information about the use of
technology, teaching, and learning in the classroom and practices observed at the school site. A
dissertation team met over the course of a year and collaboratively developed the research ques-
tions. The team reviewed research on technology integration practices, barriers to effective use,
and promising practices. Each member of the team analyzed the literature independently and
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 57
focused findings based on educators’ beliefs, describing the integration of technology practices
and school support.
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
2. To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
In this dissertation study, School X was Monarch Elementary School, a K–5 school.
Methodology
This study used a qualitative case study design. The study includes results from surveys,
interviews, observations, and document reviews. The study used a qualitative descriptive
research methodology to expand the researcher’s knowledge of policies or phenomena that affect
education. The researcher was interested in learning about the integration of technology as a part
of the field of education. As an aspiring school administrator, it is significant for this researcher
to understand how technology practices influence the classroom. “Understanding the goals moti-
vating your work will help you avoid losing your way or spending time and effort doing things
that don’t advance these goals” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 23). In this respect, this researcher’s interest
helped to guide the design of the study and was essential in justifying and explaining why the
results and conclusions matter (Maxwell, 2012).
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 58
Qualitative research is the process of obtaining information using a framework that
includes several elements consisting of research questions, literature review, data collection,
analysis of data, and conclusion. Qualitative research may be used when trying to understand a
situation, for example, if there happens to be a knowledge gap when trying to understand a
specific topic (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research is also the preferred methodology if nothing
in the literature specifically addresses a particular research question or there may be only limited
research on the topic. In other words, the lack of existing research or data may lead to the need
for a qualitative research study approach.
Qualitative research is an information-finding strategy depending strongly on researcher
analysis and discussion of data and findings. Qualitative research depends on gathering infor-
mation from participants via interviews, observations, and surveys. The researcher plays a sig-
nificant role and is the primary instrument for gathering information (Merriam, 2009).
Qualitative research is ideal due to its descriptive nature, which can become a “colorful descrip-
tion . . . a vivid portrait of excellent teaching for example can become a prototype that can be
used in the education of teachers or for the appraisal of teaching” (p. 51).
Sample and Population
In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act mandated a focus on technology
integration in all areas of K–12 education. Since that time, the quality and availability of educa-
tional technology in schools and the technology literacy of teachers and students have increased
significantly. However, most researchers agree that effective technology integration in most
schools has yet to be realized. Participants in this study were employees at school sites, primarily
teachers and administrators. No children were interviewed or surveyed. Participant selection was
purposeful, “based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 59
gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam,
2009, p. 77).
This study focused on one particular school site that was implementing school-wide tech-
nology practices and policies. In a qualitative research study, it is applicable for a sample to be
small, nonrandom, and purposeful (Merriam, 2009). The sampling for this study was purposeful
and a criterion was determined in collaboration with a research team. As a result, the population
for this study was based on a public, private, and/or charter elementary, middle, and high schools
located in urban areas in California that were actively committed to integrating technology into
the classroom. School population does not have to reflect significant diversity as indicated by
subgroups, including ethnic makeup, socioeconomic status, English language learner population,
and students with disabilities. In addition, the school sites selected were outperforming similar
schools with similar makeup in urban settings, as indicated through significant student achieve-
ment and/or significant gains.
The school selected for this study met the following established criteria: (a) urban K–12
system, (b) technology claim of actively implementing technology, (c) vision, mission, school
introduction, or principal’s message, (d) outperforming similar schools in the urban setting based
on specific data sources, (e) no enrollment criteria (diversity, special education, English language
learners, ethnicity, and (f) public and private schools, including any magnet or charter schools.
The school selected for this study was Monarch Elementary School (a pseudonym pro-
vided by the researcher). Near the crossroads of two major freeways, Monarch Elementary is part
of an award-winning public school district serving an incorporated city in Orange County, Cali-
fornia. According to the 2013-2014 School Accountability Report Card (SARC), the student
enrollment by grade level totaled 708 students. Student characteristics and diversity included
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 60
2.4% African American, 0.1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 11.2% Asian, 2.0% Filipino,
17.7% Hispanic or Latino, .03% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 60.1% White, 5.3% two or
more races, 7.3% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 3.2% English Learners, and 8.1% students
with disabilities.
According to the school’s website, technology integration is embedded in the school
vision. Monarch Elementary School’s vision is to provide students with the foundation necessary
to become independent lifelong learners by (a) emphasizing concern and tolerance of others
through responsibility, respect, and reflection; (b) promoting self-confidence by enhancing and
sustaining physical and social well-being in a supportive environment, which allows risk taking;
(c) enabling students to communicate effectively in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in a
technologically advanced society, and (d) educating students with a rigorous academic curricu-
lum to critically and creatively apply knowledge in a democratic society and changing world.
Evidence of technology integration appears in the school’s Curriculum Framework and
Academic Content Goals, which indicate that, to meet the needs of all children, program goals
emphasize that students of various abilities and needs enhance their learning through the acqui-
sition, integration, and use of technology as a tool to acquire knowledge and information in the
media center and classroom. The school’s professional development program requires that staff
members receive training on newly adopted materials, technology, and state frameworks. The
district priorities also include increasing effective use of technology to improve student learning
and to refine Internet safety curriculum. Each school maintains a library/media center, which is
supported by district and state supplemental funding.
According to the school website, Monarch’s media center is centrally located at Monarch
Elementary School and is described as the “hub” of the school. It provides access to information
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 61
via books, encyclopedias, atlases, and Internet resources. The library houses more than 11,000
fiction and nonfiction books, 40 multimedia personal computers with Internet capabilities, and 3
personal computers linked to the school’s Online Public Access Catalog of Books (OPAC).
Monarch Elementary dedicates several links and provides information on its website
regarding its 1:1 iPad program. The program was launched in 2012; the school has now three
mobile iPad carts and 80 iPads for student classroom use. The school website states that students
have weekly classroom time to access iPads during instructional time in an effort to increase
student participation, engagement, and achievement, and to enable students to connect with
experts and learners from around the world.
Monarch Elementary has maintained academic success as reflected in an Academic Per-
formance Index (API) score of 965 in 2013, making Monarch Elementary one of Orange
County’s top elementary schools. In addition, Monarch Elementary has been designated a Blue
Ribbon school.
Based on review of information regarding the integration of technology on the school and
district website, SARC information, and dissertation chair recommendation, Monarch Elemen-
tary was deemed to meet the criteria for this study.
Instrumentation
A qualitative research methodology was selected for this research, including a survey,
interviews, observations, and document review. Document review included public documents
such as SARC, Single Plan for Student Achievement, the district’s Local Control Accountability
Plan, the professional development calendar, staff meeting and training agendas, coaching and
observation schedules, technology plan, master calendar, mission/vision statement, classroom
artifacts, lesson plans, work samples, and assessment data. This strategy provided this researcher
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 62
with background knowledge prior to entering the school site. The documents were collected
through use of the Internet and made available to the public. When specific documents were not
available online, assistance from the school site personnel to obtain the documents was
prompted. A one-time 21-item survey gathering specific information about demographics,
student learning, technology skills, technology support, and technology beliefs was administered.
The survey took approximately 10 to 20 minutes to complete. A one-time 20- to 40-minute inter-
view was held with two teachers, one administrator, and one director in a place convenient to the
participant. The interview included questions about technology integration in instruction,
technology knowledge and skill of teachers and administrators, technology support available for
instruction, and technology integration beliefs as they pertained to the school’s technology
integration in the teaching and learning process. Prior to the start of the interview, each
participant who agreed to the interview being audio recorded was recorded. Participants who
disagreed were not audio recorded; instead, written or typed notes were used. If a participant
refused to allow written notes to be taken, they were excused from the interview. Transcription
of the interview, whether recorded or written, was the responsibility of the interviewer. This
researcher also observed classrooms for approximately 45 minutes or an entire class period. This
researcher was also on the school site for approximately 5 or more days to gain depth and breath
of knowledge about the school site. Using the research questions as the focus, the collaborative
research team reviewed data needs and potential document review resources needed to address
the research questions. Table 1 is the document review matrix developed by the research team.
Data Collection
Data collection took place at the school site over a period of 3 months. Additional
information was obtained through websites and document review. Initial contact was made by
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 63
Table 1
Document Review Matrix

Data needs Potential document review sources

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

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

Research Question 2: To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of
skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?

Teacher education programs Professional development records
Professional development Staff meeting and training agendas
Personal knowledge and research
Teachers’ responses

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

Types of professional development School plan
Resources Professional development records
Information technology support Coaching and observation schedules
Site budget Local Control and Accountability Plan
Site budget process Staff meeting and training agendas
Coaching: formal and informal School Accountability Report Card

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

Educators’ beliefs School plan
Lesson plans

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 64
personal solicitation through the use of email or telephone call. The purpose of the initial conver-
sation was twofold. First, an explanation of the study to be conducted by University of Southern
California (USC) doctoral candidates/researchers was provided. Second, information regarding
obtaining consent was discussed in order to be granted permission to conduct the study. As
directed by Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines, a letter of introduction and consent was
provided to the participants. A date and time was set with the assistance of the principal to meet
with interviewees and observations were scheduled at the school site and district office. The
researcher provided the principal with copies of the teacher survey and an introductory letter,
which included researcher background information and case study purpose and requirements for
teacher volunteers. The principal volunteered to share the case study information with teachers
and provide space in the main office for survey collection.
Participant Privacy and Data Confidentiality
Data were collected through written surveys, audiotaped recordings of interviews, written
records of observations, and document analysis. Although all participant teachers volunteered to
be observed during instructional time and/or interviewed, the researcher created a pseudonym for
the school and referred to the participants by their professional titles. Links to identity were kept
separate from the data. All data were either anonymous (survey) or coded (interviews). Second-
ary data analysis and document review had no identifiers and are reported in the aggregate. Data
and/or specimens are labeled with a code so the research team could link to personal identifying
information. Data and/or specimens were not labeled with any personal identifying information
or with a code that the research team could link to personal identifying information, thus
remaining anonymous.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 65
Because this researcher used multiple instruments to collect data, a combination of
coding and noncoding methods was used. For interviews and observations, coding was used to
match participants to what they shared with regard to instructional practices observed. Surveys
were anonymous, eliminating any link to the participants’ personal information. For further con-
fidentiality, data were locked in an office. Access was restricted to authorized study personnel.
Data were also stored in a secure computer. All data will be kept for 3 years and then destroyed.
Validity and reliability of the study were assured through the depth of the dissertation team’s
review of current research and shared use of instruments across 10 schools.
Data Analysis
The analysis of data was determined through the use of Creswell’s six steps for data
analysis and interpretation: (a) organize and prepare data for analysis, (b) read through all the
data, (c) code the data (hand or computer), (d) sort the data into themes or descriptions, (e) iden-
tify interrelating themes and descriptions, and (f) interpret the meaning of the themes and
descriptions.
In Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches,
Creswell (2013) presented a multistep approach to analyze raw data in an attempt to “make sense
out of text and image data” (p. 195). As suggested by Creswell (2013), organizing and preparing
data for analysis involved transcribing interviews, typing field notes, and arranging the data by
type. Second, all data were read and reviewed through notes and annotations made to capture
general ideas that participants expressed. This researcher also recorded general thoughts about
the data. Third, data were coded, “a process of organizing the data by bracketing chunks . . . and
writing a word representing a category in the margins” (p. 198). A table was created to keep
track of codes and data sources. Fourth, a coding process was used to develop a description of
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 66
the setting or people, as well as categories or themes for analysis. As suggested by Creswell
(2013), this process was used to narrow codes to four to seven themes. Next, the themes devel-
oped were organized and outlined in a purposeful way so the researcher represented the infor-
mation in a narrative way. This process led to development of subthemes and use of multiple
perspectives from participants, including quotations. The last step in data analysis was to make
an interpretation in qualitative research. Creswell (2013) described this interpretational stage as
asking reflection questions involving lessons learned, deriving meaning from corroboration of
data, and comparing narrative outcomes with theories from literature on the topic (p. 200).
Validity of the data was ensured through triangulation, time in the field, and peer
debriefing. Creswell (2013) suggested that various data sources be used to examine evidence
from a range of sources. This was accomplished through the use of interview, observation,
survey, and document review data. This researcher visited the school site a minimum of five
times throughout a 3-month period. Creswell (2013) suggested locating a person who reviews
and asks questions about the qualitative study (p. 202). This researcher worked with a research
team and constantly used the peer debriefing process in every step of the research process.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 67
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This chapter presents a description of the research questions and the presentation of data
results and data analysis collected via surveys, interviews, observations, and school-provided
documents.
This study was designed to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively
integrating and implementing technology in its curriculum and instruction. The study examined
the teaching and learning environment and educational policies at Monarch Elementary School.
This chapter presents the results and knowledge gained from surveys, interviews, observations,
and documents collected for analysis. Results are presented by research question and a discus-
sion of emerging themes is provided. The TPACK conceptual framework for technology inte-
gration is also discussed. This study was guided by four research questions:
1. How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
2. To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
In the case of this particular study, “School X” was Monarch Elementary School (a pseu-
donym).
Research Tools
A dissertation team met over the course of 1 year and collaboratively developed the
research design and research questions. The team collected and shared research on technology
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 68
integration practices, obstacles to effective use, and promising practices. Each member of the
team analyzed the literature independently and narrowed findings based on educators’ beliefs,
integration of technology practices, and school support. Although the team met regularly for peer
debrief, each member independently collected data at individual schools. Data collection was
conducted via surveys and interviews with instructional staff, document analysis, and classroom
and campus observations. The data were triangulated to determine potential impacts on teaching
and learning from the school’s technology adoption efforts.
Monarch Elementary employed 29 classroom teachers to serve 707 students enrolled for
the 2015-2016 school year. Participants in this study were two teachers, the Principal, and the
Director of Educational Technology. Formal observations were made of three grade-level class-
rooms and the Media Center. In addition to the school community and learning environment, a
professional development meeting held at the district office was observed. The surveys were
disseminated to the entire teaching staff but only 10 surveys were returned (34% return rate). It is
significant that, when data were being collected, Monarch was in a state of transition. The Prin-
cipal had received a promotion and new role in the district during the summer. The Teacher on
Special Assignment (TOSA), who served as the technology “go-to person” was promoted to
Director of Educational Technology, a new position in the district. As a result, Monarch Ele-
mentary had new people filling significant leadership roles and positions, such as Principal,
TOSA, and a technology teacher volunteer. Although the school was in a state of transition, the
researcher ascertained that key leadership figures who were promoted to district level positions
spoke to their leadership attributes, accomplishments, and technology efforts at Monarch Ele-
mentary.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 69
Background of the School
Monarch Elementary is a public K–5 school that is part of an affluent community near
the crossroads of two major freeways. It is part of an award-winning school district that is com-
posed of six elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school serving an incorpo-
rated city in Orange County, California. Monarch Elementary has a reputation of academic
success in student achievement. It achieved an API score of 965 in 2013, making it one of
Orange County’s top elementary schools. In addition, Monarch was awarded the Blue Ribbon
and title of California Distinguished School. Evidence of technology integration was evident in
the school’s Curriculum Framework and Academic Content Goals, which indicated that, in an
effort to meet the needs of all children, program goals emphasized students of various abilities
and needs to enhance their learning through the acquisition, integration, and use of technology as
a tool to acquire knowledge and information in the Media Center and classroom. School activi-
ties and events, including visuals of classroom learning, were viewed through social media. The
Parent Teachers Association keeps an active school Twitter and Instagram account to communi-
cate school pride and accomplishments. Furthermore, Monarch Elementary dedicates several
links and provides information on its website regarding its 1:1 iPad program, launched in 2012.
The school now has three mobile iPad carts and 80 iPads for student classroom use.
According to the school website and public documents provided, educators at Monarch
Elementary are guided by key school and district prioritized goals. The mission of the school is
to provide students with the foundation necessary to become independent lifelong learners. One
way in which the school seeks to accomplish this is by enabling students to communicate effec-
tively in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in a technologically advanced society.
According to the 2013-2014 SARC, additional focus goals included enhancing learning by all
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 70
children through the acquisition, integration, and use of technology as a tool to acquire
knowledge and information in the Media Center and classroom.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do educators integrate technology to support students
learning?” In an effort to determine the extent to which educators at Monarch Elementary inte-
grate technology in their curriculum and instruction to support student learning, the researcher
first conducted document analysis. The analysis revealed that Monarch Elementary aims to inte-
grate and sustain technology use through an on-site Media Center and implementation of a 1:1
iPad program. The school website describes that the 1:1 iPad program was intended to provide
students with weekly classroom time to access iPads during instructional time in order to
increase student participation, engagement, and achievement, and to enable students to connect
with experts and learners from around the world. In addition to providing information regarding
technology integration goals and programs at Monarch Elementary, technology policy use letters
and parent/guardian communication were included. The researcher found that parents/guardians
are given information regarding the use of technology to enhance classroom instruction. For
example, they were informed that tools such as Google Apps, Microsoft Office 365, Edmodo,
Socrative, Moodle, flipped classrooms, blogs, podcasts, and other web resources would be used.
Also, an extensive iPad applications or Student Apps List is provided for both educators and par-
ents/guardians. This is accessible through the school website. This list states the app title and
briefly describes its purpose. According to a presentation delivered to the community and parents
and guardians, technology is used as a tool to enhance instruction. The teacher plays a critical
role in designing and facilitating learning via a digital platform. In accordance with Common
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 71
Core State Standards, implementation of the iPad program provides multiple ways for students to
show their understanding.
As evident in classroom and Media Center observations, students were engaged in a vari-
ety of activities using technology. Although some applications were commonly used during
observations and/or mentioned during the interviews, the applications or programs used in the
learning process varied from class to class and grade to grade. In an effort to assist with students’
learning, teachers use technology in a variety of ways to enhance learning. They were observed
embedding the iPad in their instruction to differentiate information and learning outcomes. For
example, students were observed using the iPad to search for information on search engines or
using certain applications to create projects and communicate their learning.
Along with document analysis, the researcher used survey, interview, and observation
records for triangulation of the data. As these data were reviewed, technology use and accessi-
bility were found to be strong factors throughout the classrooms. For example, the researcher
observed students using the iPads for a variety of reasons. Students searched for information,
created a graph, and illustrated or described their thinking. Students were observed using the
iPad throughout the class period for short periods of time. Student technology-based activities
were observed to take only about 5 to 10 minutes. As a result of the timed use of technology, the
majority of students were observed as being on task. Students also demonstrated engagement, as
they volunteered to share answers, projects, or group and pair discussions after each activity.
Although the students were observed using the iPad, the teacher did not use the iPad. The
researcher noted that, throughout various classrooms, the teachers were iPad free and walked
around without restrictions and assisted students. Teachers were observed using other technology
devices, such as a projector or smart board, to deliver information; however, the students were
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 72
the main consumers and producers of the technology in all classrooms observed. The survey
showed that 80% of the responding educators at Monarch integrate technology in the delivery of
instruction. One teacher shared that “technology is used across disciplines for multiple classes
across content areas like reading, math and writing.” The researcher noted that there was a
prevalent use of technology-embedded lessons in classrooms.
Differentiation
According to the school principal, students are using technology in a variety of ways
“different ways, different days.” Expressing a common belief, the Director of Educational Tech-
nology shared that different teachers are using technology in different ways. She elaborated that
some teachers at Monarch are combining learning tools, such as iPad applications, to give
students more choice. She pointed out that applications are called “tools” in an effort to differen-
tiate them from games to the students. She cited the SAMR model when describing how teachers
are using technology in the classroom. She indicated that teachers at Monarch are using a variety
of learning tools in various ways to give students more choices. Developed by Ruben R.
Puentedura in 2006, the SAMR model referred to in Chapter 2 is a framework for evaluating
mLearning (Romrell et al., 2014). The SAMR Model consists of four levels: substitution, aug-
mentation, modification, and redefinition. The technology provides a substitution for other
learning activities with out functional change. In augmentation, the technology provides a sub-
stitution for other learning activities but with functional improvements. Modification is the way
in which technology allows the learning activity to be redesigned. Redefinition describes the way
in which technology allows creation of tasks that could not have been done without the use of the
technology (p. 4). The framework identifies “learning activities that fall with in the substitution
and augmentation classifications are said to enhance learning, while activities that fall within the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 73
modification and redefinitions classification are said to transform learning” (p. 5). According to
the Director of Educational Technology, when educators give students a choice of a range of
tools, they are “truly using the technology in transformative ways.”
The researcher noted that differentiation of instruction is twofold. First, differentiation of
instruction refers to the way in which teachers present or deliver information to make learning
more accessible to students of diverse needs. According to the Director of Educational Technol-
ogy, the instructional tools may assist teachers in differentiating the instruction by adding audio
for students with auditory processing issues or enlarging text. The Principal also noted that tools
such as Google Classroom could differentiate instruction by helping to formulate groups that are
homogenous and heterogeneous. Second, differentiating learning tasks may help students to
develop certain skills and/or reach higher level learning. For example, students were observed
using the Popplet application to create a presentation. This project required students to express
their thinking and knowledge through creation of a bubble map—a thinking/concept map to
organize ideas. Popplet allows students to type information onto their bubble map. In addition,
students used the Internet browser to find images to enhance their bubble map presentation.
Popplet allowed students to add images. This was an individual and independent activity. Once
students had completed their individual Popplets, they engaged in a gallery walk, walking around
their designated tables and reviewing their classmates’ work. They were required to provide a
positive feedback comment on a Post-It next to the iPad. According to the SAMR model, the
Popplet activity may be considered redefinition, due to students using higher level thinking to
create their own projects. They are able to enhance the activity by adding images from an Inter-
net browser. The activity became even more meaningful as students engaged in a gallery walk to
communicate opinions and thinking in the form of feedback to peers.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 74
Motivation and Classroom Management
The data analysis also reflected on other outcomes of technology integration in the class-
room. The Director of Educational Technology shared that teachers are using applications such
as Class Dojo for motivation and classroom management. Although not a strong supporter of this
extrinsic method of motivation, the interviews and observations corroborated the use of Class
Dojo as a prevalent way to encourage students and monitor behavior. In an informal conversa-
tion, the Principal described Class Dojo as a parent contact application used to send messages to
parents instantly via computer or iPhone. One of the teachers shared that she uses Class Dojo in
her classroom for classroom management. She explained that students “get positive points for
doing good choices and negative points for doing not so good choices.” In all three classrooms
observed, the teachers used Class Dojo to motivate students to do well and to reward desired
behavior. For example, in one class the teacher sent all parents a positive message through her
iPhone because the class had participated positively during a review activity. Before this activity
took place, the teacher explained to the students that she would do this. So the students were
motivated to do well because they perceived a positive message sent home as being a reward.
The researcher noted that additional applications or learning tools shared through inter-
views or observed in the classrooms assisted with increasing student motivation. For example,
one of the teachers used Nearpod because she observed her students getting “very excited and all
engaged and raising their hands.” The researcher noted that the learning tools that teachers chose
were based on reaction from students. In all classrooms observed, the majority of students
showed high levels of engagement and motivation. For example, student attention, such as eye
contact, was focused on the teacher, information on the white board, or their iPad. The researcher
also noted that the noise level was very low or quiet, specifically when the teacher was providing
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 75
directions or instructions. If students engaged in a discussion, it was assigned or purposeful talk
associated with collaborative group work. All students remained seated unless a class activity,
such as group/pair work or a gallery walk, was assigned. The researcher found it interesting and
noted during an observation that students became highly energetic once they were allowed or
instructed to use their technology. Students were observed motivated and engaged by iPad activ-
ities. The researcher also noted that expectations and procedures for technology use was most
likely pretaught. Classroom observation revealed that all students used the same norms. For
example, students leave the iPad on the right corner of their desks and do not touch it until
instructed to do so. Digital citizenship posters and quotes were observed in the classrooms and
the Media Center. In one of the observations, a teacher referred to the ideas/expectations of a
digital citizen before students began certain activities, such as those requiring students to com-
municate feedback to other students. Some of the Digital Citizenship posters in the Media Center
stated, “My comments posted online are meaningful and purposeful,” “I think before I share,” “I
always keep password safe,” and “Technology opens the door to the world.”
The researcher noted no distinction between what some would say is “technology time”
and “regular instruction.” Technology was seamlessly embedded in the lesson. Although stu-
dents were using the technology several times throughout the instructional time, they were not
using the technology for extended periods of time. Document review revealed that students are
expected to use technology 85% of the time at home and 15% at school. The researcher reflected
that the structure of technology time served to minimize distractions, such as visiting other sites
or conducting noninstructional activities or even getting bored. The researcher determined that
instructional time was maximized due to integration of technology to increase motivation and
engagement, as well as manage student behavior.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 76
Assessment
The data analysis also reflected that, in addition to student motivation and classroom
management, technology was used to inform instruction through formative assessments.
According to the Director of Educational Technology, learning tools such as Socrative and
Kahoot can be used to assess student learning. She expressed that teachers are “using them for
formative assessment so they can get some on going data on whether or not the students under-
stood on the fly.” This suggests that technology provides a very quick way to get instant student
data for classrooms, especially those with large numbers of students. The researcher established
that technology serves to inform instruction and allows teachers to evaluate student learning
much more quickly than ever before.
The researcher observed students participating in a review activity in which the teacher
used Kahoot. Through this activity, students could see the questions projected on the whiteboard
in the front of the class and then answer the multiple-choice questions through their iPads. At
first glance, this technology format appears to be a substitution for paper and pencil; however,
due to features of Kahoot, such as music playing in the background, timed responses, and per-
sonification features, the activity was enhanced. Due to Kahoot’s ability to record and save
student responses almost immediately, the teacher could stop and review information. If the
majority of correct responses were low, the teacher stopped to review the information. The
researcher established that due to this data-recording feature, the learning activity became
enhanced to the category of redefinition because the technology now allowed the teacher to have
instant assessment data to inform and guide instruction. The perceived use of technology in the
classroom to inform instruction was further indicated by survey responses showing that 80% of
educators at Monarch integrate technology in their instruction.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 77
Student Voice and Choice
Observations revealed that technology was evident and integrated seamlessly into the
instruction. Technology served to enhance the learning experiences of students. Interviews and
survey data supported a shared expectation of technology use. Survey responses showed that
60% of the educators at Monarch integrated technology to promote lessons that encouraged cre-
ativity and innovation through student use of technology. The Director of Educational Technol-
ogy noted that the “focus is on the process of learning and not the product.” She explained that
students at Monarch are using various learning tools to create a range of types of projects and
that the learning tools and applications serve different purposes. Similarly, the Principal shared
that students used technology for research and to produce final products as their publishing form.
The Director of Educational Technology suggested that learning is meaningful and transforma-
tive when students can choose from a range of tools to show their learning.
The Director of Educational Technology indicated that pedagogy has completely changed
because of technology. She implied that curriculum and instruction are more collaborative and
that there was more group work. Survey responses showed that 60% of the educators at Monarch
integrate technology to encourage students to work collaboratively while using technology.
During the observation of the Media Center, students worked in self-selected groups of four on
one of four technology-based activities of their choosing.
A teacher shared that technology in her class was student driven. For example, the stu-
dents took ownership in her class because they were able to express their thinking with mathe-
matics through certain applications that have manipulatives and offer them the opportunity to see
the iPad as a whiteboard to maneuver materials. Another teacher shared that technology worked
well with reading activities because students could research information, create slides, and
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 78
import graphics and diagrams to their projects. Another teacher shared that students in her class
were using technology in the classroom to “teach from it.” During an observation, students were
directed to turn to their side buddies and explain how they had derived their conclusions. Stu-
dents were holding their iPads and pointing to their work as they communicated their thinking to
their partners.
The review of data suggests that teachers are using technology in various ways to enrich
teaching and learning. For example, although the Kahoot and Popplet applications have the
potential to transform teaching, it was the teacher’s lesson designs that enhanced the activity and
helped students to reach a higher level of learning. For example, the teacher looked at the Kahoot
data either to stop and review or to move on with the activity. The Popplet project was enhanced
through the teacher’s idea to have students add images to their projects, as well as engage in a
gallery walk activity. The teachers at Monarch Elementary have developed student-centered
practices that embed technology into their curriculum based on the learning needs and desired
learning outcomes of their students. Table 2 reports the survey responses related to the first
research question.
The survey results indicated that most of teachers responding to the survey are involving
the use of technology in their classroom and hold positive beliefs about how technology may
encourage creativity, stimulate critical thinking, and encourage collaboration. The researcher
noted that Monarch was in the third year of the iPad Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program
implementation. Since the initial pilot, a different grade level had implemented the program. The
Director of Educational Technology shared that the school began with early adopters. As a result,
it was concluded that not all teachers had the same level of experience and were in the process of
gaining knowledge.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 79
Table 2
Survey Results for Research Question 1

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

1. My instruction involves use of technology. 0 2 5 3
2. My lessons encourage creativity and innovation
through student use of technology. 1 3 4 2
3. My lessons embed activities or tasks that stimulate
critical thinking and problem-solving through student
use of technology. 1 3 3 3
6. Students are encouraged to work collaboratively
with other students while using technology. 1 3 5 1

Summary
Although teachers have access to technology devices such as ELMO, laptop, and so forth,
students at this school are encouraged to use technology in support of their learning. Through
technology-embedded lesson designs, teachers provide students with differentiated instruction,
increase motivation and classroom management, and assess learning. In an effort to provide stu-
dents with a meaningful and purposeful experience, students were observed using a variety of
learning applications and tools that enhanced their learning in the classroom. These student-
centered practices allowed students to build collaboration skills through group work activities, as
well as create projects and communicate their learning through various learning applications and
tools. According to the research discussed in Chapter 2, Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) sug-
gested that student-centered practices lead to higher level thinking. As a result, students benefit
from being more motivated and engaged in their learning. Through the school’s iPad implemen-
tation program, students have access to information at the touch of a finger in a way never before
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 80
possible. The teachers strongly viewed the iPad as a tool to assist in their delivery of curriculum
and instruction. With the iPad, teachers were able to differentiate instruction and student learn-
ing. First, they differentiated how students received the information. Second, they differentiated
how students composed and created their work. Third, they differentiated how students com-
municated and demonstrated their learning. The researcher noted that the varieties of technology
applications and tools gave students choices. Fourth, teacher differentiated how students are
assessed. Some applications and programs instantly save student learning data that teachers use
to modify lessons for all or individual students in an instant or record that information for future
lesson design. As a result of student-centered practices, technology-embedded teaching and
learning at Monarch is used to increase student motivation, engagement, and reach higher levels
of learning.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of
instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?” In an
effort to explore the factors to which educators at Monarch attribute their knowledge of instruc-
tional technology skills, as well as the pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool, the
researcher first looked at the survey data and then used observational and interview information
to triangulate the findings. The survey responses showed that 80% of the educators go out of
their way to stay current on the new innovations related to educational technology. The triangu-
lation of data revealed that educators use and personally explore technology information online.
For instance, in interviewing the Director of Educational Technology, Principal, and teachers,
social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other blogs were described as
sources of knowledge. The Principal said, “Educators can learn from and follow educators who
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 81
are near and far away . . . that are completely diving into technology and the use of it in the class-
room.”
In addition to online resources, the data revealed that personal exploration of knowledge
extended into the classroom. In listening to the several interview participants, it became clear
that educators at Monarch see themselves as lifelong learners who are constantly searching and
experimenting with new ideas. For instance, in interviews with both the Principal and teachers,
learning to integrate technology into the curriculum was attributed to “trial and error” or learning
through doing. Through observation, it was clear that the teachers had knowledge of various
technology tools. Students were observed using various learning applications and tools in the
iPad. Teachers were observed embedding technology throughout the class period in a variety of
ways. One teacher shared her advice for gaining knowledge and experience in integrating tech-
nology into the curriculum:
Dive in and experiment. Be willing to fail. Be willing to have it mess up. Be willing to
have a whole lesson get blown and learn from it and move forward. Because if you go in
thinking it’s all going to work the first time perfectly, you will be very frustrated. So just
keep an open mind.
Another significant highlight found in the survey was that 80% of the teachers use tech-
nology daily in a variety of ways to present lessons. On numerous occasions, it was explained to
the researcher that educator use of technology was attributed to school support provided in the
form of modeling of technology tools in the classroom by the TOSA. The researcher noted that
the same person takes on related responsibilities as the Director of Educational Technology.
During interviews, it was shared that the Director of Educational Technology goes in the class-
room and often works with students and teachers. The Principal also corroborated that the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 82
Director of Educational Technology “actually works with administrators, as well as, teachers in
order to give us those tools and guide us in the right direction on what pieces of technology can
be used as tools for what curriculum area.” During observation of a professional development
meeting, the Director of Educational Technology was involved in the learning of online grade
books alongside other principals, teachers, and key district staff. In speaking with the director,
the researcher learned that the director wanted to expose teachers to everything new and trans-
formative. The director shared that one of her goals is to share with teachers “things that are
above the line in SAMR,” referring to transformative practices rather than substitution forms of
technology use. As indicated by a teacher, demonstration lessons given by the district technology
person are significant. “She will demo a lesson or helps assist in the lessons.” Table 3 reports the
survey responses related to Research Question 2.
Table 3
Survey Results for Research Question 2

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

9. I use technology daily in a variety of ways
to present lessons. 1 1 3 5
11. I go out of my way to stay current on the
new innovations with technology. 0 6 2 2

Although it was not revealed as a major finding by the data, the researcher found it rele-
vant that educators at Monarch Elementary sometimes attribute their knowledge of technology to
their students. For example, the Principal acknowledged, “We also learn from our students.”
Some teachers agreed that students played a role in gaining technology knowledge. One teacher
shared, “The kids show me things I don’t know. This morning they were showing me.” The
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 83
researcher concluded that student input might be one of the various ways in which teachers go
out of their way to seek knowledge. This student-teacher collegial approach to learning empow-
ers students and promotes a collaborative culture of growth.
In summary, district and school support is provided to teachers and students. The district
has hired a Director of Educational Technology who supports schools by providing information
and guidance for educators and students. This same person previously took on those responsibil-
ities at Monarch Elementary as the TOSA. Enrichment for educators was attributed to the
demonstration lessons that the Director of Educational Technology models in classrooms with
students. This onsite modeling of different learning tools in the classroom was found to be a sig-
nificant factor in all interviews. The differentiation of information is a way to enhance instruc-
tion for different learners as well as to engage students. Students were observed using various
learning tools in the iPad to complete tasks, independently conducting research for their projects
on search engines, and communicating their work to their peers. The survey data showed that
most teachers are using technology in the classroom daily in a variety of ways to present infor-
mation. Interview data showed that teachers attributed their knowledge to trying to stay current
on innovation with technology. Many used social media sites to gain ideas and information
regarding ways to embed technology into lessons. The survey showed that teachers go out of
their way to stay current on new innovations with technology. Through the process of triangula-
tion, the researcher concluded that educators at Monarch Elementary attribute their knowledge
and use of technology to school support from key technology leaders, experimentation in the
classroom, and personal exploration.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 84
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “In what ways are educators provided support for technology
integration and implementation?” In an effort to determine the ways educators at Monarch Ele-
mentary are provided support for technology integration and implementation, the researcher
looked at the school’s iPad Program 2013-2014 parent presentation. The researcher then used
survey, observation, and interview responses to triangulate the information. In reviewing the
school’s iPad Program parent presentation, the researcher found that the school claims that
teachers at Monarch Elementary are considered classroom experts who are “passionate about
using technology to enhance students learning and are equipped with the technology to do so.”
Teachers at Monarch Elementary were provided a MacBook Pro, iPad 2, Smart Board, and
Apple TV. In addition, document reviews showed that there was a Media Center, which is
described as a library, housing 40 multimedia personal computers with Internet capabilities, and
3 personal computers linked to the school’s OPAC. The survey showed that that 100% of the
responding educators at Monarch Elementary agreed that the use of technology is encouraged
and promoted at their school. Observations of various classrooms and the Media Center corrobo-
rated the presence of educational technology devices. The school’s 1:1 iPad Program is described
as sustaining three mobile iPad carts and 80 iPads for student classroom use. As of 2013-2014,
the school implemented a BYOD iPad pilot program. This program was extended to other grade
levels. This allowed students the option of using their own devices at school. Students were
observed using iPads. Given the variety and personalized iPad cases, the researcher concluded
that most iPads were personal devices. Through observation, it was clear that there was a shared
vision for technology integration. Observation of the main office showed that visitors were
greeted with large bright images of smiling students using iPads in the classroom and the Media
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 85
Center. The school’s website offers a slide show of pictures highlighting school pride and fos-
tering technology use. Another significant highlight was found in the school’s vision and mission
statement. Bolman and Deal (2010) suggested, “You are more effective when you have both a
vision of where you want to go and a strategy for getting there” (p. 55). The school aims to
provide students with the foundation necessary to become independent lifelong learners by
enabling students to communicate effectively in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in a
technologically advanced society. Excellent reflection of this perspective was observed during a
visit to the school’s Media Center. Classroom groups that visited the Media Center on the obser-
vation day were provided the choice of working in teams on one of four learning activities. Three
of the four options embedded technology use for the purpose of practicing technology literacy
skills. For example, students used personal computers to practice typing, research information to
complete a cognitive guided instruction (CGI) task, and/or practice coding. The Media Center
supports the school’s vision of technology integration as it provides educators additional space
for student learning. The Media Center provides movable furniture, display areas, and collabora-
tive space. Students were observed working in groups in various areas, such as tables or carpeted
designated floor areas. In addition, the Media Center provides students with a dual device option.
Students were observed having the option to complete their task on their iPad or on the Media
Center personal computers.
A teacher indicated that the school supports teachers by making technology accessible.
“They give us the iPads fully equipped with all the apps.” Although technology was promoted, at
the same time the staff also recognized barriers to technology use. In conversations with both
teachers and the Director of Educational Technology, the researcher noted heavy use of Wi-Fi
that was inconsistent at certain sites. Although students know how to monitor and navigate
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 86
applications, the main obstacle to technology use in the classroom is “Wi-Fi and getting people
logged on.” During observation, for example, a student kept getting logged off during JiJi Math
practice time. Another student was observed helping him to restart his iPad. Teachers expressed
that “connectivity is the biggest thing.” During an informal conversation, a teacher shared that
she had modified her instruction right before the researcher walked in because the class was
having difficulty logging in to an online program. “I wasn’t sure if it’s the Wi-Fi or the site.” The
Director of Educational Technology suggested that, as technology use grows, funding for more
“hot spots” is recommended to support technology integration efforts.
Survey responses indicated that 90% of educators at Monarch Elementary use instruc-
tional technology as a component of the school’s culture. These figures are critical in substanti-
ating the potential impact of a vision for technology implementation. A teacher attributed the
support that she received to the culture of the school; “Someone is always willing to help or
support you.” In listening to the interview participants, it became clear that key people in leader-
ship roles, such as the Principal, TOSA, technology teacher, and Director of Educational
Technology support technology integration efforts. For example, a teacher indicated that school
support comes from the Principal because she is “very open to new ideas. If there is an app or
something of interest, she is willing to listen.” Through observation it was clear that the Principal
was passionate about education and her role at the school. For example, she guided the
researcher through various classrooms. As the Principal and researcher walked to and from vari-
ous classrooms, the Principal shared examples of school technology goals and implementation
efforts in progress. The researcher noted the Principal was aware and knowledgeable of how
teachers in a variety of classrooms were embedding technology. Before entering classrooms, she
shared a synopsis of classroom activities for the researcher to expect. Having used technology in
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 87
her own classroom as a teacher, the Principal shared ways in which technology was employed in
her classroom and shared her favorite technology learning tools and applications with the
researcher. One of these tools, Educreations, was observed being used by students. The Principal
further attributed technology support to a culture of growth and key people. Referring to the
Director of Educational Technology or TOSA, she shared that having an expert person modeling
the uses of technology during instruction helped with the “buy-in” factor. The researcher con-
cluded that beliefs about technology integration in the classroom had positively changed and/or
had become more accepted by teachers due to technology leaders.
Survey results revealed ways in which educators at Monarch Elementary are provided
support for technology integration and implementation through a mentor and/or hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional technology. For example, 60% of the respondents indicated
that a mentor is sometimes available for support, and 90% responded that hands-on opportunities
to learn are sometimes an option of support. According to the research reviewed in Chapter 2, ,
time for hands-on practice is significant in the development of professional communities of
practice (An & Reigeluth, 2011). A teacher shared that the school supports and trains teachers
through classroom demonstrations conducted by the district technology person. “She is someone
who is extremely knowledgeable and the fact that she come in and will demonstrates so that I
don’t have to leave my classroom. She will come in and show live in person with students.” She
added that the district person meets with grade-level teachers to “talk about what we want to
learn.” The researcher noted that the school was in a state of transition as the former TOSA had
moved on to the position of Director of Educational Technology for the district.
The researcher learned that the district was restructuring so that technology efforts could
be supported. During the interview, the Director of Educational Technology shared that she used
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 88
to be the TOSA for Monarch Elementary. “I have a new position but we now have a tech leader
who is now being trained to be the model at the school or the go to person.” During a school
visit, the researcher met the new technology teacher. In an informal conversation he shared that
he plans to meet with district and other leaders every Thursday to report back to the school what
he learns. At this time, the school had begun 2 weeks prior and the technology teacher had not
participated in a meeting and was relatively new to his new role.
While the district worked on the sustainability of technology, the Director of Educational
Technology continued to support teachers at Monarch Elementary. She shared that she is “text
on demand 24/7.” This meant that the school received personal support from her even though she
is not located at the school site. “Technology integration is modeled. They text me and I come to
the classroom and show them.” The researcher concluded that the school sustains technology
integration through modeling of practices. According to the Director of Educational Technology,
the district trains teachers and then expects teachers to keep sharing and training each other. “We
train our own.” As the TOSA, “I would actually go in the classroom and I would take over. I
would actually teach the class. The teacher and the students all learned how to use the tool and
the devises with me and we would all practice.” She then would return and follow up with the
teacher. The director calls this strategy a peer-to-peer model approach to learning. A teacher cor-
roborated that she began to implement the 1:1 iPad program only last year and was able to learn
new applications from colleagues. She indicated that she has a team partner next door and they
“figure it out together.” She also attributed her knowledge to the Director of Educational Tech-
nology, “our tech person through the district, she’s been a big help.” Table 4 reports the survey
responses related to Research Question 3.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 89
Table 4
Survey Results for Research Question 3

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

12. Use of technology is encouraged and promoted
at my school. 0 0 2 8
14. A mentor is available to support technology
integration. 3 5 1 1
15. Use of instructional technology is a component
of my school’s culture. 0 1 4 5
16. Teachers are provided with hands-on opportunities
to learn instructional technology. 1 6 3 0

The survey results revealed that most teachers believe that technology is promoted at the
school and is a component of the culture. The researcher noted that the school was in a state of
transition. The previous TOSA had been promoted to Director of Educational Technology and
new people were being trained to fill positions such as TOSA and technology teacher volunteer.
As a result, the transition affected teachers’ responses with regard to the level of technology
support provided through a mentor or hands-on opportunities to learn.
Bolman and Deal (2010) advised that schools are complex systems. They offered four
perspectives of how schools may be understood: structural, political, symbolic, and human
resources frames. In late August 2015 the researcher learned that Monarch’s Principal had
received a promotion in the district. During the interviews, the researcher also learned that the
key technology person known as the TOSA had been also promoted to a newly designed district
position, Director of Educational Technology. Despite the turnover, there was sustainability of
leadership evident at the school site. For example, a supportive principal was hired and a new
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 90
technology teacher position was created. Although redefined, the position of TOSA was sus-
tained and assumed by a new teacher. The researcher examined the data and determined that
leadership played a significant part in the integration and sustainability of technology at Monarch
Elementary. There were previous systems in place that were sustained even with the transition of
key people. To continue to meet teachers’ needs, the new technology teacher and TOSA will
take on these responsibilities. Furthermore, the new Principal is a strong supporter of the 1:1
iPad program. In an informal conversation, she expressed plans to enhance the school’s Media
Center.
In an effort to align the structure with work, the school’s TOSA and Principal were pro-
moted to district-level positions before the 2015-2016 school year. The district filled the struc-
tural gap at Monarch Elementary by hiring a supportive and knowledgeable new principal with a
history of technology in her classroom. Bolman and Deal (2010) suggested, “A harmonious
family creates a workable arrangement and makes adjustments as circumstances require” (p. 89).
To strengthen the vision of technology, the district created the position of Director of Educa-
tional Technology, which was filled by Monarch’s TOSA. In addition, the district vision
included that schools designate a technology teacher volunteer. The Director of Educational
Technology shared that the vision for this position includes training this person in becoming a
leader and the technology person. The Principal also shared that Monarch Elementary continued
its support for teachers and technology-embedded instruction through the TOSA, who is also the
new Media Center teacher.
In an effort to cope with changes, Bolman and Deal (2010) suggested that a school
“develop and share tangible evidence of other goals the school has accomplished” (p. 93). Doc-
ument review showed a strong media coverage of classrooms making a difference through the
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 91
school website and Twitter and Instagram accounts. Also, parents and the community were kept
informed through parent councils. Document review revealed that a technology meeting was
held for parents regarding technology implementation plans, purpose, and goals at the end of the
2014-2015 school year. The district provided Internet safety presentations for parents at various
school sites during fall 2015. Classroom observations revealed that students are expected to
follow technology use protocols based on the principles of digital citizenship. Additional tech-
nology policies can be found in Monarch Elementary’s Parent-Teacher Handbook.
In an effort to map and master the political terrain, an informal conversation with the
Principal in the Media Center revealed that she plans to continue support for technology integra-
tion efforts at Monarch. For example, the Principal plans to invest resources in sustaining a more
up-to-date Media Center by acquiring books, materials, and furniture. During observation, she
cared for teacher and student needs when she asked the Media Center teacher to make a list of
needs. The researcher noted that resources spent in this lab would be equally accessible to all
teachers and classrooms. Observation in the Media Center revealed that multiple classes could
use the Media Center simultaneously. Two classrooms visited the center on the day of observa-
tion. Guided by the Media Center teacher, students were fully emerged in a variety of collabora-
tive technology-embedded experiences.
In an effort to celebrate values and culture, Bolman and Deal suggested that “frequent
glances in a school rearview mirror are necessary as having a vision of the future” (p. 114). Evi-
dence of a strong culture was found on various online sources, such as the school website, and
the school’s Twitter and Instagram accounts. Images of students learning, as well as positive
messages and commentary from school staff, can be found on the various sites. The researcher
concluded from the document review, observations, and interviews that this school is proud of
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 92
who they are and they want to share with others. The Principal was observed greeting parents
and students in the morning in front of the school before school commenced. Also, large canvas
printed images of happy students learning and school pride welcomed visitors in the main office.
The school’s main page boasted of school accomplishments and academic recognitions. Fur-
thermore, website visitors could easily navigate through tabs containing school information, such
as curriculum, programs, technology, vision and mission, and links to other relevant and infor-
mational resources. During visitation, the researcher was asked to pose for a picture holding an
image of the school’s mascot to be uploaded to the school’s Twitter account. The researcher not
only felt welcomed but also officially became a part of the school culture. Symbolically and as a
relevant connection to students’ lives, technology such as online and social media platforms are
used to promote purposeful communication and engagement.
Bolman and Deal (2010) suggested that, in an effort to empower self and others, “Listen
to others. Attend to their feelings, concerns, and aspiration” (p. 69). A teacher shared that the
principal is open minded and listens. The triangulation of data led the researcher to conclude that
the school has a culture of growth. Teachers who were interviewed expressed that they learn due
to “trial and error.” It was concluded that the teachers are not afraid to learn new things. The
researcher inferred that this open-minded culture is a result of influential leadership and history.
For example, the Principal shared her beliefs on being a lifelong learner. Operating from the
human resources frame, she communicated that it was important for her to create a culture where
teachers felt safe to embed the technology without fear of being judged for their performance. As
a result, all teachers who were interviewed revealed that they learn through “trial and error.”
Furthermore, the Director of Educational Technology suggested that a culture of growth is sus-
tained through a peer-to-peer model of learning. “We train our own.” She explained that her
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 93
responsibilities included modeling and conducting demonstrations of technology tools with
teachers in the classroom. Bolman and Deal (2010) suggested, “Encourage communication, and
share responsibility for making the school a better place. Spread a feeling of ownership” (p. 69).
The researcher concluded that classroom demonstrations allow teachers and students to learn
technology tools together and, as a result, ownership and empowerment are promoted. The new
onsite technology teacher was expected to sustain the practice of modeling technology use in
classrooms.
In summary, educators at Monarch Elementary are provided technology support in a
variety of ways. The key to this support was laid out in a shared vision technology implementa-
tion plan. This plan began as a 1:1 iPad pilot program that has now evolved into a school-wide
program. The technology plan supports educators through supplying technology devices and
technology content and pedagogy knowledge. For example, teachers are supplied with various
forms of technology tools, such as iPads, laptops, projectors, and ELMO. Teachers have access
to a variety of technology devices, software, and programs, as well as the Media Center. For
example, the iPad was equipped with installed educational tools. The school also invested in pur-
chasing licenses for technology programs, such as ST Math.
The district supports the school site through hiring a key technology expert person titled
Director of Educational Technology. Teachers at Monarch Elementary attribute their knowledge
of technology tools to this person. The Director models and conducts classroom demonstration
lessons for teachers. Teachers at this site agree that the Principal is open minded and willing to
listen. The triangulation of data revealed that technology support at this school is attributed to a
variety of reasons, such as vision of technology integration, leadership roles, and culture of
growth.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 94
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “What are educator beliefs about technology integration and
implementation?” In an effort to understand educators’ beliefs at Monarch Elementary regarding
technology integration and implementation, the researcher triangulated the data from interviews,
surveys, and observations. The triangulation of data led the researcher to conclude that educators
at Monarch Elementary possess shared beliefs and a purposeful vision toward technology inte-
gration and implementation at their school. For example, all survey respondents supported the
use of technology in the classroom, agreed that instructional technology has a positive impact on
student learning, and agreed that technology is an important of teaching and learning. It was evi-
dent in speaking with the teachers and the Principal that the educators share passionate beliefs
regarding their role and responsibility to the students of Monarch Elementary. For example, the
Principal stated that technology is a “gateway to the 21st century and 21st-century learning.” She
stated that the school should expose students to technology and “show them how to appropriately
navigate through technology.” She stressed that it was a “disservice” if they did not do so. The
researcher concluded that the use of technology is meaningful to students when implemented in a
purposeful way to support teaching and learning. One teacher agreed that she viewed the use of
technology as “very 21st-century thinking.” The researcher concluded that the educators view
embedding technology in instruction as having long-term benefits for students. The same teacher
explained, “These kids are going to graduate and going to have jobs like this and even maybe
create apps like this” and “it’s important to start them at a young age because that’s where soci-
ety is heading.” The researcher concluded that the teachers believe that students will benefit in
the future if they gain certain technology-related skills early on. As discussed in Chapter 2, the
benefits of technology are 21st-century skills, being able to “explore interests, achieve feeling of
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 95
success, develop both problem-solving and interpersonal skills and developing a broad sense of
career awareness” (Brown & Brown, 2010, p. 83).
In spending time in the school’s Media Center, the researcher observed students engaged
in a variety of technology-embedded activities. For example, some students had the choice of
building typing skills using Dance Mat Typing on a personal computer or on the iPad. Students
also had the choice of accessing information through various online search engines, using per-
sonal computers to complete a task. The researcher also observed students learning and practic-
ing coding. The researcher noted that the coding activity was the most popular choice of work
for the students on that day. The Media Center teacher explained that studio.code.org allowed
students to create their own game and reported that it was the “popular thing with the kids these
days.” The researcher concluded that the coding activity is a mode of exposing students to
modern technology information. The researcher suggested that technology-embedded activities
simulate real-life and future career experiences. Students in the Media Center were provided the
opportunity to see how technology could be used for a variety of purposes, such as completing a
task at hand, practicing skills, or gaining knowledge and working in teams. Through the inter-
views, participants shared a sense of responsibility to learn and expose students to technology.
The Principal supported this belief when she shared her philosophy on the role of technology in
education:
Technology is really the wave of the future. Unfortunately, technology does change
rapidly and it does grow. As educators, we have to be open minded, that it’s never ending
. . . it’s truly the concept of being a life long learner. It does not stop. So to have the
interpretation “When will I master this?” Never. You will never master. You are just a
continuous lifelong learner. Going in with that idea makes it more feasible and realistic.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 96
Survey responses showed that all respondents agreed that technology has a positive
impact on teaching and learning. In speaking with the Director of Educational Technology, the
former TOSA, the researcher learned that students have more “voice and choice” as a result of
the variety of learning tools that the school now provides. For example, she shared that students
“are able to show what they learned in ways that they were not able to before. They are using
multimedia that is a part of the life that they are actually living.” The researcher concluded that
students at Monarch Elementary use technology, such as the iPad, outside of school and are now
able to show what they know at school. They can even use their own devices to learn and show
their learning. The school’s BYOD iPad program supports this belief and vision. The majority of
students were observed using their own iPads in class. Survey responses showed that all
respondents agreed that students are empowered by this activity. The Director supported this
concept; “It’s a better match for how they actually live and survive outside of school.” The
researcher concluded that technology has the potential to extend the learning to home.
Survey responses indicated that teachers at Monarch Elementary have a constructivist
approach to learning. For example, all respondents agreed that their classrooms are student
centered and that their students are empowered to be responsible for their own learning. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 2, constructivist student-centered beliefs guide students to be engaged,
collaborate, create, solve problems, and communicate (Popejoy, 2003). All interviewed partici-
pants shared the belief that technology integration is beneficial to student learning and engage-
ment. The Director stated that technology increases motivation and enthusiasm. A teacher
indicated that her instruction is “more exciting. The kids are more engaged . . . they are used to it
anyways. They are always on their iPads at home.” Observations of students learning revealed
that the teachers use technology as a tool for student learning. Students use the technology, such
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 97
as the iPad, throughout the instructional day in a variety of ways and for structured times. For
example, in one class, students moved from a 10-minute whole-class activity without technology
to a 10-minute individual technology-based activity and then to a 10-minute group activity to
provide feedback to their peers. The Principal explained that teachers should view technology as
a tool, “Use it as a tool and to not focus on the technology . . . focus on curriculum . . . technol-
ogy is a mere tool.” In another classroom, students worked in teams of two to collaborate on
problem solving. In the Media Center, students choose their own teams and technology-based
activity. As discussed in Chapter 2, the learner-centered model allows teachers to become facili-
tators and students to work in groups (An & Reigeluth, 2011). The triangulation of data revealed
that the teachers use technology as a learning tool to enhance teaching and learning for students,
as well as to differentiate their instruction. Table 5 reports the survey responses related to
Research Question 4.
Table 5
Survey Results for Research Question 4

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

17. I support the use of technology in the classroom. 0 0 3 7
18. Instructional technology has a positive impact
on student learning. 0 0 5 5
19. Technology is an important part of teaching
and learning. 0 0 4 6
20. My classroom is student centered. 0 0 1 9
21. My students are empowered to be responsible
for their own learning. 0 0 1 9

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 98
In summary, the survey results provided another significant glimpse of the prevalent
shared vision of the technology program at Monarch Elementary. It can be inferred that these
educators hold positive technology beliefs. The triangulation of data substantiated that teachers
at Monarch Elementary have progressive attitudes to the support of technology integration.
Interviews revealed that the teachers agreed that technology in the classroom represents 21st-
century learning. Observations of students using technology tools demonstrated that technology
helped to engage students because it is relatable to their everyday lives. Teachers shared that
many of their students use or see technology used at home. The survey and interview data indi-
cated that teachers agreed that their students are empowered because technology has a positive
impact on learning. In interviews, the teachers shared that they understood the need to teach stu-
dents to use technology in various ways because of job- or career-related opportunities that stu-
dents would encounter and need in the future. The researcher concluded that educators at
Monarch Elementary have a sense of purpose and responsibility to provide students with the best
tools and to implement student-centered practices to enhance learning. Teachers at Monarch
Elementary agreed that technology made their teaching more effective and “opens a whole new
world.” They choose applications and programs that support student-centered practices. Obser-
vations and interviews revealed that the teachers had knowledge of a variety of learning tools
that allowed students to create their own projects and to communicate and think at higher levels.
Document review revealed a list of iPad applications that teachers could choose. The teachers
recommend that novice teachers have patience and keep an open mind. The data showed that the
teachers at this school love technology. In fact, one teacher shared, “I love it!”
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 99
Emergent Themes
Four major themes emerged from the findings: (a) student-centered approach, (b) culture
of growth, (c) accessibility, and (d) shared vision.
Student-Centered Approach
Stakeholders at the school showed a committed constructivist approach to learning. There
is a strong positive outlook on the use and benefits of integrating technology, such as iPads, into
instruction. There are established norms for student use of iPads in the classroom, Internet safety,
and responsibility. Teachers embed technology to enhance instruction so that the applications
and tools or technology programs that are used serve a specific purpose that is meaningful to the
student learning outcome. Teachers use technology to differentiate instruction and increase
student motivation, engagement, and learning experience.
Culture of Growth
Stakeholders, such as district and school-site leaders, teachers, and students are learning
and teaching at this school. There is an open-minded “trial-and-error” attitude that allows stake-
holders to acquire new knowledge for the purpose of professional and personal growth.
Accessibility
This school is very organized and transparent. The initial positive impression comes from
the school’s up-to-date, user-friendly, and informative website. Upon visiting the school, it is
apparent that what is online reflects real life. There is a clear technology plan that has been
gradually implemented through educational leaders. Support is provided through the technology
devices and tools that are made accessible to teachers and students, a peer model approach for
technology sustainability, and continuous and personal district support from the Director of Edu-
cational Technology.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 100
Shared Vision
Stakeholders at this school share the belief that integrating technology is a step in the
right direction. It is a responsibility for adults at this school to teach and incorporate technology
because it is relatable to students’ daily lives and enhances the teaching and learning classroom
experience. Curriculum is guided by teaching 21st-century skills: creating, collaboration, com-
munication, and critical thinking.
TPACK Framework
The TPACK framework was used in this study as a lens to understand how school-wide
goals and practices are leading to successful integration of technology at Monarch Elementary
School. Developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009), the TPACK conceptual framework is
described as a complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and
technology. CK is described as the teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or
taught, PK is the teachers’ deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of
teaching and learning, and TK is described as the way someone “understand[s] technology
broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in his or her everyday lives, to recognize
when information technology can assist or impede the achievement of a goal” (p. 64). All three
knowledge forms must be present so that technology may be implemented in a way that is
deemed effective. There is a variety of dynamics or practices that may allow educators to have
better access to the three knowledge forms.
Technology knowledge at Monarch Elementary is supported through providing students
and teachers with the required technology tools and information. The school supports a 1:1 iPad
program, which evolved into a BYOD program. In addition, there are computer carts, a Media
Center, and a variety of classroom technology tools such as projectors, ELMO document readers,
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 101
and Smartboards. The school has invested in technology software programs and licenses, such as
ST Math. A student iPad applications list is provided for teachers, parents, and students. A tech-
nology teacher volunteer and a Director of Educational Technology support school stakeholders
with their technology needs.
For development and support of pedagogical knowledge, Monarch Elementary provides
technology-based professional development in the form of classroom demonstrations. For exam-
ple, the Director of Educational Technology is responsible for supporting the school site and
modeling technology use in classrooms with students. Teachers gain technology knowledge from
these demonstration lessons, focused on incorporating technology tools or learning programs
with their students. The focus is not on how to teach the technology but rather on how to teach
content using the technology. Teachers shared that the Director, the former TOSA, also met with
grade-level teams to share information and answer questions.
Teachers at Monarch Elementary demonstrated a strong level of content knowledge. Due
to the variation off applications and tools and technological programs available to the teachers
and students, educators included learning standards in their practice. Using the features and tools
on the iPad, students could demonstrate their learning and be assessed in differentiated ways.
The teacher or the student had the ability to choose the technology tool that would allow the
student to create, communicate, and collaborate on various learning tasks. The teachers shared
that professional development and demonstrations by the Director of Educational Technology
served to model effective strategies of technology use. The researcher concluded that this was
supportive for teachers and helped to illustrate the positive impact on student engagement and
motivation in the classroom.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 102
As a result of the support system provided by the school and district, as well as the tech-
nological tools and devices provided, the school has developed a culture of growth. This belief
was supported in the school’s technology program, a gradual release plan. As a result, teachers
learned from the experience of other teachers as the 1:1 iPad Program was extended from one
grade level to the next. As technology continued to change and new tools were introduced, edu-
cators developed an open-minded attitude that allowed them to learn from each other and tech-
nology leaders.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is
actively integrating and implementing technology in its curriculum and instruction. This chapter
reported results related to the four research questions guiding this case study:
1. How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
2. To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
A variety of information from teacher surveys, staff interviews, classroom observations,
and school policy documents was collected. Through triangulation of these data, four themes
emerged: student-centered approach, culture of growth, accessibility, and shared vision. These
themes were discussed in relation to the TPACK conceptual framework. The discussion revealed
that Monarch Elementary is sustaining a constructivist view of learning. Students are engaged in
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 103
learning activities that assist in the development of skills, such as creating, communicating, and
collaborating. Learning tools are embedded in various ways through the learning process, which
has resulted in students having more voice and choice. As a result, the curriculum is enhanced in
a transformative way. Teachers predominantly use the student-friendly iPad technology and
include applications to differentiate their instruction. Teachers deliver information in a variety of
ways based on the needs of students. Students create various projects and communicate their
learning in diverse ways through the applications and features of the iPad. Furthermore, teachers
assess students and gather data in a way never before possible. Due to features of certain learning
tools and technology-based programs, such as Kahoot and JiJi Math, student content comprehen-
sion data are more readily available for teachers. They use these data to inform their instruction.
Student engagement at Monarch Elementary increased due to the relatability of the iPad to
students’ daily lives in and out of school. District and school leadership developed sustainability
support systems in which a culture of growth, experimentation, and “trial and error” remains the
norm. Furthermore, learning was transformed due to the student-centered teaching and learning
practices that embed technology in an effort to provide students with a meaningful and purpose-
ful learning process and experience. Finally, educators at this school share the belief that it is a
responsibility to teach and incorporate technology because it is a 21st-century way of learning
and important for the students’ future.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 104
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Overview
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 presented the background,
purpose, research questions, significance, limitations, and definition of terms. Chapter 2 contains
a review of literature that is synthesized to gain insight into barriers to technology integration
and teachers’ beliefs, examples of hopeful student-centered practices, school staff support prac-
tices, programs, and pedagogical models, and current examples of effective technology integra-
tion in schools. Chapter 3 presents a description of the research questions, research design,
population and sampling, instrumentation, and data analyses. The results are presented in Chap-
ter 4. Chapter five presents the discussion, implications, and recommendations for future
research.
Purpose, Methodology, and Significance
Technology is considered a learning tool to enhance student learning. Although the pres-
ence of K–12 technology has increased, its integration and implementation in curriculum and
instruction are inconsistent. There is a gap in the literature regarding understanding of effective
and active practices for technology integration in K–12 schools. This qualitative case study was
focused on gaining information about transformational practices associated with school-wide
technological integration policies and how they affect teaching and learning.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that was
actively integrating and implementing technology in its curriculum and instruction. In an effort
to gain insight into transformational practices associated with the use of technology, the study
examined the teaching and learning environment and educational practices at Monarch Elemen-
tary. The review of literature indicated that actual usage of technology in most classrooms
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 105
involves low levels of cognitive demand, such as administrative tasks and drill and practice.
There is a wide range of technology learning tools available; however, there is still a need to
understand which tool and pedagogical practice provide the most effective learning outcome.
Missing from the research are specific examples of schools that are actively implementing tech-
nology and are transforming their curriculum and instruction. This study was designed to
decrease the knowledge gap between research and practice.
This case study focused on a public elementary school setting. It included results from
surveys, interviews, observations, and document review. Validity of the data was assured
through triangulation, prolonged time in the field, and peer debriefing (Creswell, 2013). The
study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do educators at Monarch Elementary integrate technology to support students
learning?
2. To what factors do educators at Monarch Elementary attribute their knowledge of
instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at Monarch Elementary provided support for technology
integration and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at Mon-
arch Elementary?
This study is significant because it focused on a school that was actively integrating tech-
nology into its curriculum and instruction. School organizational leaders and teachers who are
seeking to implement or enhance technology integration may benefit from the instructional tech-
nology integration efforts presented in this study. Particularly, schools that are seeking to use
instructional tools across the school, such as the iPad, may find the pedagogical norms and staff
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 106
technology knowledge development practices at Monarch Elementary as ideas in the develop-
ment of school technology plans. With the ever growing and changing world of technology, this
study adds knowledge to the literature as it provides an example of a school that was actively
using a school-wide iPad program to transform teaching and learning.
Discussion of Findings
Through triangulation of collected data, four major themes arose from this case study:
student-centered approach, culture of growth, accessibility, and shared vision.
Student-Centered Approach
A student-centered approach to learning was evident. As cited in Chapter 2, there is a
variety of technology learning tools available in the market and integrating technology to address
students’ needs is at the forefront of educational policy; however, despite the major investment
in technology equipment, “students report using the computers sparsely in their schools”
(Christensen et al., 2011, p. 81). Educators at Monarch Elementary have a positive outlook
toward integration of technology, such as iPads, into their teaching practices. They perceive that
technology has long-lasting benefits for students. The teachers embed technology to enhance
instruction so that the applications and tools that are used serve specific purposes that are mean-
ingful to student learning outcomes. The teachers use technology to differentiate their instruction
and increase student motivation, engagement, and learning experience. As the Director of Edu-
cational Technology shared, teachers can be presented new devices but, unless they know how to
use them purposefully, access to the devices does not matter. Monarch Elementary has a positive
reputation for achieving student success through the use of student-centered practices and cur-
riculum such as CGI and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 107
approaches. Technology has been embedded to enhance these student-centered practices and
thereby increase student motivation and higher level thinking skills.
Culture
A culture of growth was the second emerging theme. A variety of dynamics or practices
allow educators to have better access to the three knowledge forms referenced in the TPACK
model. For development and support of pedagogical knowledge, Monarch Elementary provides
technology-based professional development and support. For example, teachers reported that the
Director of Educational Technology visits the school site and models technology use in the class-
rooms with students. They also reported that they learn to implement technology and technology
tools with their students based on demonstration lessons. The focus is not on how to teach the
technology but how to use it as a learning and teaching tool. The teachers also shared that the
director meets with grade-level teams to share information and answer questions.
These teachers demonstrated a strong level of content knowledge. Due to the variation in
technological tools made available to teachers and students, educators are equipped to teach to
higher level learning standards. Using the features and tools of the iPad, students demonstrate
their learning and are assessed in differentiated ways. Stakeholders such as district and school-
site leadership, teachers, and students are learning and teaching at this school. There is an open-
minded and “trial-and-error” approach that allows stakeholders to acquire new knowledge for the
purpose of professional and personal growth. As a result of the support system provided by the
school and district, as well as the technological tools and devices provided, the school has devel-
oped a culture of growth.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 108
Accessibility
The third theme emerging from the data was accessibility of technology devices and
pedagogy. Although the technology resources are available, barriers such as teachers’
knowledge, skills, confidence, and time affect their beliefs and their ability to integrate technol-
ogy in their practice. This research was guided by a review of literature showing that educators
lack the knowledge and technology skills regarding how to use technology devices and how to
embed them in a transformative way in their classrooms. This school is very organized and
transparent. The initial positive impression came from the school’s up-to-date, user-friendly, and
informative website. Upon visiting the school, it was apparent that what is said online is real.
There is a clear technology plan that has been gradually implemented by educational leaders.
Providing students and teachers with the required technology tools and information supports
technology knowledge at Monarch Elementary. Accessibility to technology knowledge is pro-
vided through the technology devices and tools that are made accessible to teachers and students,
a peer modeling approach for technology sustainability, and continuous and personal district
support from the Director of Educational Technology.
Vision
The final emerging theme was shared vision. The review of literature suggests that
teacher technology-oriented school-wide professional development goals may influence teach-
ers’ beliefs about technology integration. This case study was also guided by the belief that it is
significant to understand the dynamics of a school that actively implements technology in an
effort to transform student achievement. A vision shared by various stakeholders at Monarch
Elementary was evident. Stakeholders at this school share the belief that integrating technology
is a step in the right direction. They hold it to be a responsibility for adults at this school to
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 109
integrate technology because it is relatable to students’ daily lives. Students are exposed to tech-
nology outside of school and are acquiring skills that they can demonstrate in school.
Technology is believed to enhance the teaching and learning classroom experience based on the
behavioral reactions and academic performances that teachers observe. The 1:1 iPad program is
based on the belief that teaching and learning will facilitate teaching of 21st-century skills: cre-
ating, collaboration, and communication.
Implications for Practice
Technology is available and incorporated in education more than ever before; however,
its use in K–12 schools is inconsistent. By comparing the phenomena at Monarch Elementary to
previous research, this new knowledge may inform policy makers, administrators, and teachers
about how to support the technology integration efforts of individual teachers or groups of teach-
ers. Monarch Elementary began its technology integration effort 5 years ago with a single com-
puter laboratory focusing on keyboarding and word processing skills. In the following year, the
school received three iPad carts and integrated ST Math (JiJi) into the computer lab. The next
year, the school began the 1:1 BYOD iPad pilot program in the fourth grade. Accessibility to
technology increased to five iPad carts, iPad lab focused on ST Math, and creation of a TOSA
position, whose focus was on instructional technology. In the 2014-2015 school year there were
iPads in every classroom. The 1:1 BYOD program was extended from third- to fifth-grade class-
rooms. The computer lab transformed into a technology lab, which integrated a library and dual
platform technology center using iPads and personal computers.
In each phase of the school’s technology plan, the school reflected on lessons learned and
formed a vision for the future. The goals for the 2013-2014 school year provided a student-
centered approach: Explore the opportunities that having each student with an iPad would bring
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 110
to the classroom, increase student engagement through high-interest student activities, and build
interest in school learning that extended beyond the school day. Document review revealed that
lessons learned from the pilot included the following: Technology became a game changer for
teachers and students because the school was convinced that technology was a way to facilitate
learning and collaboration, more teacher training was needed, student capacity with technology
exceeded the school’s initial expectations, and technology increased classroom management.
Based on the results of the pilot program, the school concluded that the BYOD program would
allow students to access projects and assignments from home, extend learning after the school
day, and encourage students to come to school with ideas for new, innovative, and creative class
projects.
The TPACK conceptual model was in full effect at Monarch Elementary. The inclusion
of the iPad program was purposeful and the leadership developed evidence and provided justifi-
cation for the program to parents. The school held the belief that students are growing up with
technology in a changing world, making them “digital natives.” The integration of technology
can help to prepare students for college and careers, allowing them to gain 21st-century skills
and literacies. Early exposure to technology would also help to align elementary practices with
middle school and high school expectations. Higher grade levels were already embedding the use
of iPads, Chromebooks, and personal computers. Technology would assist with the transition to
computer-based formative state assessments, such as the SBAC.
The sustainability of the iPad program would require continued buy-in by various stake-
holders. Contributing to the sustainability of the technology integration at Monarch Elementary
is a culture of growth and school support. For example, evidence of an open-minded or growth
mindset was revealed in interviews where teachers shared that key people in the school listen to
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 111
their ideas and that there is someone always willing to help. Furthermore, technology knowledge
was acquired through modeling and hands-on demonstrations in classrooms. Leadership is
required to allow teacher empowerment and support roles, such as TOSA, to exist. Vision is
required to allow the TOSA continue to grow professionally and sustain technology integration
efforts by building additional leadership and professional capabilities in other teachers.
This case study suggests that administrators and other school leaders play a role in
providing guidance, support, and resources. The results of this study may provide educational
leaders with additional insight regarding the relationship between teachers’ internal and external
barriers to technology implementation. Most schools currently use technology in modest ways or
inadvertently support existing and traditional teaching practices. Monarch Elementary is a model
for educators and provides strategies and vision for embedding technology in the classroom. The
support of technology through classroom modeling and demonstrations by technology experts in
the school was found to be powerful. A recommendation for a school wanting to move in this
direction is to build leadership from within. Demonstration lessons are powerful because a fellow
teacher models them. It is significant to acknowledge teachers who have special interest or
unique skills in technology from which the school can benefit. In an effort to build leadership
and acquire knowledge, the creation of special positions such as TOSA and Director of Educa-
tional Technology is significant.
Future Research
In the past decade and a half, access to technology has increased significantly in K–12
schools. However, research indicates that actual usage of technology in most classrooms
involves low levels of cognitive demand, such as administrative tasks and drill and practice. The
research on technology integration is minimal and focuses mainly on barriers that schools and
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 112
educators encounter. More research is needed to reveal the positive impact of technology-
embedded instruction on student learning. Teachers, administrators, and policy makers could
profit from more research that reveals the positive impact of technology integration may have on
curriculum and instruction when it is supported.
Three recommendations for future research in the realm of technology integration and its
impact on curriculum and instruction are presented.
1. A limitation associated with this study involved the fact that technology integration to
enhance student learning is a relatively new topic. Due to the constant changes in technology,
treatment of hardware such as iPads and chrome books, as well as software such as Google Docs,
is limited in the literature. There are only limited data regarding effective practices of technology
in schools. This case study focused on a school implementing an iPad program. Because tech-
nology is ever changing, examining the use of other learning devices and tools or even the inte-
gration of dual devices may contribute to identifying the positive effects of technology
embedded practices.
2. There are several characteristics of professional development that may lead to
increased knowledge and beliefs held by teachers. Findings suggest that teachers attribute their
knowledge of technology to modeling and classroom demonstrations of technology tools. Inves-
tigating the impact of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge as a result of a peer-to-peer model form of
professional development is recommended because it may lead to significant transformational
teaching practices and changes.
3. This study was delimited to four primary research questions and a 21-item Likert-type
scale survey. While assumptions based on the results can be made, generalizability is not
appropriate. Specifically, there were only three survey items addressing “technology skills.” This
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 113
section of the survey provided the researcher with very limited information regarding teachers’
beliefs about technology knowledge. Changes or additions to the interview questions and survey
items might offer a different perspective on the topic.
Conclusions
Most students are immersed in rich digital worlds outside of their schools; however, most
learn in schools with a traditional teacher-centered learning environment. Today’s jobs and
future careers will require students who have certain type of skills that require technology
knowledge. Producing successful and productive members of society will require educational
institutions to incorporate technology tools in curriculum and instruction in meaningful ways.
Teaching 21st-century skills will require embracing technology in the teaching and learning
process. Common themes found in the literature show that factors such as school support, tech-
nology resources, and teachers’ beliefs may affect successful implementation and integration of
technology in the classroom. The discussion of findings in Chapter 4 revealed Monarch
Elementary is sustaining a constructivist view of learning. Students were engaged in technology-
embedded learning activities that facilitated development of 21st-century skills such as creating,
communicating, and collaborating. Technology tools at Monarch Elementary are embedded in
various ways through the learning process, giving students more voice and choice. As a result,
the curriculum is enhanced in a transformative way. Teachers predominantly use the iPad device
and included learning tools in differentiation of instruction. They deliver instruction in a variety
of ways based on the needs of their students. Student engagement is elevated due to the
relatability of the technology to students’ daily lives in and outside of school. As they develop
technology literacy skills, students are empowered and develop global awareness and increase
motivation, engagement, and self-reliance. Student-centered practices that embed technology
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 114
provide students with meaningful and purposeful learning experiences that go beyond substitu-
tion. Access to technology provides teachers with a 21st-century way of teaching and provides
students with information and experiences that are not available without technology. More
important, technology-embedded instruction offers a pathway to college and career awareness.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 115
REFERENCES
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2010). Reframing the path to school leadership: A guide for
teachers and principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Brown, R. A., & Brown, J. W. (2010). What is technology education? A review of the “official
curriculum.” Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 83(2), 49-53.
ChanLin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Inno-
vations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55-65.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 813-834.
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support
at-risk students’ learning. Stanford, CA: Alliance for Excellent Education and Stanford
Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Dawson, K. (2012). Using action research projects to examine teacher technology integration
practices. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 117-123.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 116
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
& Education, 59, 423-435.
Flanagan, S., Bouck, E. C., & Richardson, J. (2013). Middle school special education teachers’
perceptions and use of assistive technology in literacy instruction. Assistive Technol-
ogy, 25(1), 24-30.
Foley, G. D., Khoshaim, H. B., Alsaeed, M., & Nihan Er, S. (2012). Professional development in
statistics, technology, and cognitively demanding tasks: Classroom implementation and
obstacles. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,
43(2), 177-196.
Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched environ-
ment to improve higher order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Edu-
cation, 34(2), 109-119.
Jahnke, I., & Kumar, S. (2014). Digital didactical designs: Teachers’ integration of iPads for
learning-centered processes. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3),
81-88.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and prac-
tices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education,
59, 1109-1121.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 117
Lee, R. (2006). Effective learning outcomes of ESL elementary and secondary school students
utilizing educational technology infused with constructivist pedagogy (English as a
Second Language). International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 87.
Lewkowich, D. (2012). Technology and curriculum: Shadows and machines. McGill Journal of
Education, 47(1), 19-35.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (n.d.). News. Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/cctp
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of profes-
sional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417-430.
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 implementation, Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers’ understanding of technology, content, and peda-
gogy in the context of case development. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-
tion, 44(1), 1-29.
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot
surveys of educational technology in K–12. Journal of Research on Technology in Edu-
cation, 36(1), 15-27.
Popejoy, K. (2003). Technology integration in an elementary science classroom: Its impact on
teaching and learning. ERIC Document Reproduction Number ED475477
Reel, T. (2009). Enhancement of integration of technology into the curriculum. Ontario Action
Researcher, 10(2), 2-19
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 118
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating
learning. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 18(2).
So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence
and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors.
Computers & Education, 51, 318-336.
Taylor, L., & Fratto, J. (2012). Transforming learning through 21st-century skills. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st-century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco,
CA; Jossey-Bass.
Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M. B., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing
technology-related teacher professional development designs: A multilevel study of
teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60,
421-444.
Wei, L., & Hindman, D. B. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects
of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communi-
cation and Society, 14(2), 216-235.
Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2009). Using technology in the social studies classroom: The
journey of two teachers. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 133-154.
Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended
e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155-164.
Yim, S., Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Lawrence, J. F. (2014). Cloud-based collaborative
writing and the Common Core Standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58,
243-254.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 119
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

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: To what fac-
tors do educators
attribute their knowl-
edge 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?

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 120
APPENDIX B
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Date: _________ Course/Grade:_______________ Teacher: _______________

Box 1: Practice is observed Box 2: Practice used technology
1= Mildly Evident 2=Highly Evident 1=Enhanced by Technology 2=Transformed by Technology
Samples of Effective Practice
warm-up hook/orientation
connect to prior knowledge
modeling/demonstration
guided practice
independent practice/homework
review homework/answer student questions
appropriate wait time
monitoring
monitoring with feedback & correctives
reinforce effort/provide recognition
structured academic talk by students
non-linguistic representation
cues, questions, advanced organizers
generating & testing hypothesis
identify similarities & differences
differentiating lessons
review/reteach
jigsaw/reciprocal teaching
use of academic vocabulary

Check for Understanding Strategies

allows calling out
random, non-volunteers
volunteers
white boards
teach another
thumbs up/down
exit cards
assessment
Technology Tools
Box 1: Teacher Use Box 2: Student Use
Interactive White Board
Electronic Responders
Document Camera
LCD Projector
Laptop/Tablet
Software
Other: _________________________________
______________________________________________
Classroom Environment (take photos for set-up)
standards-based objective posted
Traditional
Non-Traditional: _________________________
______________________________________________
Level of Student Engagement

engaged (active): ___
compliant (passive): ___
disengaged: ___
rebellious: ___

Student Grouping

individual
pairs
small group cooperative learning
whole class
heterogeneous: ___________________
homogeneous: ____________________

Student Activity

worksheets
note-taking
writing
summarizing
presentations
bookwork
individual PBL
collaborative PBL
performance task

Curriculum Resources

core materials
supplemental
teacher-created/aligned
online resource
student generated

Rigor Level of Instruction

create
evaluation
synthesis
analysis
application
comprehension
knowledge
below grade level
DOK 1
DOK 2
DOK 3
DOK 4

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 121
Date: _________ Course/Grade:_______________ Teacher: _______________

Student Demographics
Number of Students: Male:
Instructional Programs
Sped: EL: GATE:
Race/Ethnicity
AA: A: H:

Teacher Behavior:

Female:

Accelerated: GE: Remedial:

W: O:

Student Behavior:

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 122
APPENDIX C
SURVEY PROTOCOL
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
1. My instruction involves use of
technology.

2. My lessons encourage creativity and
innovation through student use of
technology.

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

4. My lessons embed student use of
technology in the classroom.

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

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

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

8. I use technology to differentiate
instruction.

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

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

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

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 123

Technology Support

1
Rarely or
Never

2
Sometimes

3
Most of
the Time

4
Almost
Always
12. Use of technology is encouraged and
promoted at my school.

13. IT support staff is available to assist
when needed.

14. A mentor is available to support
technology integration.

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

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

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

18. Instructional technology has a
positive impact on student learning.

19. Technology is an important part of
teaching and learning.

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigated the dynamics of a K-12 school (Monarch Elementary) that was actively integrating and implementing technology in its curriculum and instruction. The Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework was used as a lens to understand how schoolwide goals and practices led to successful integration of technology. Four research questions guided the study: (a) How do educators integrate technology to support students learning? (b) To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as instructional tool? (c) In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and implementation? and (d) What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation? Information was collected via teacher surveys, staff interviews, classroom observations, and school policy documents. A qualitative research methodology was applied to identify practices used to integrate technology into curriculum and instruction. Four themes emerged from the triangulation of data: (a) student-centered approach, (b) culture, (c) accessibility, and (d) vision. Students in this study were engaged in transformative technology-embedded activities that facilitated development of 21st-century skills, such as creating, communicating, and collaborating. Teachers implemented the school’s iPad® Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program for differentiation and enhancement of learning in classrooms, which gave students more voice and choice. Monarch Elementary is a model for educators and provides strategies and vision for embedding technology in the classroom. As students learn technology literacy skills, they are empowered, develop global awareness and increase motivation, engagement, and self-reliance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration and innovation in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

Learning and teaching with technology

PDF

Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Robles, Laura (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/04/2016

Defense Date 03/10/2016

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

Tag 21st century learning,accessibility,BYOD program,culture,Curriculum and Instruction,education,instructional technology,iPad,K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,SAMR model,student centered instruction,teaching and learning,technology-embedded instruction,TPACK framework,vision

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Pulver, Andrew (committee member)

Creator Email laurarob@usc.edu,LRobles2007@sbcglobal.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-224630

Unique identifier UC11277050

Identifier etd-RoblesLaur-4226.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-224630 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RoblesLaur-4226.pdf

Dmrecord 224630

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Robles, Laura

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