University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

(USC Thesis Other)

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 1
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AT A 21ST-CENTURY SCHOOL
by
Kimberly M MacKinney
____________________________________________________________________
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 Kimberly M MacKinney
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When I made the decision to pursue a doctoral degree, I knew that it would challenge me
beyond anything that I had ever experienced. I learned a great deal about myself along the way.
I also learned the true meaning of the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child,” Without the
support of family, friends, instructors, and colleagues, I would not have been able to complete
this journey.
I thank my mom, sad, John, and Harold for being patient with me when I could not be an
active part of the family, when I changed plans because my schoolwork took longer than I
expected, or when I was late to return messages. Their love and support kept me going when it
got hard. Their phone calls and text messages were a great help to me.
Kyle inspired me when he began this process in 2012. I thank him for pushing me to be
the scholar he knew I could be, for keeping me calm when I was overwhelmed, and for remind-
ing me that “it’s not all that hard.”
To my second family, I am so grateful to Cathy, Dick, Pop, and Kayley. I thank them for
all of the dinners, rides, schedule accommodations, love, and friendship during this journey.
I am grateful to my critical friends Breana, Pat, and Paul, for reading over my drafts and
providing feedback when I knew I was too close to the project. To the 2013 Orange County
Cohort: I greatly benefited from their various perspectives on teaching and learning. I know our
discussions and interactions have made me a better educator. I am so lucky that I was paired with
Meg in framing class. I hope she knows how much I value her friendship.
I thank my chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold, for guiding me through this process. His feedback
encouraged me along the way and helped me approach this as an opportunity for growth and
development. I also thank Dr. Roach, Dr. Green, Dr. Pineda, Dr. MacCalla, Dr. Rayburn, Dr.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 3
Castruita, Dr. Hocevar, Dr. Escalante, and Dr. Ott for their commitment to my learning during
my time in the classroom and the writing of this dissertation. Each has taught me to look deeper
and ask more questions. I feel lucky to have benefitted from their knowledge and experiences
during my time at USC.
I doubt that I would have been able to persevere without the assistance of the colleagues,
mentors, teachers, and friends at Fontana and Oro Grande. My thanks go to Superintendent
Heather Griggs and Associate Superintendent Oscar Duenas for their unwavering support and
reinforcement during my educational journey. Not only did they help me to accomplish this goal,
but also they recognized when I needed that extra encouragement to juggle the demands of work
and school. I am thankful to Terrie, Stella, and Nancy for helping me keep all the balls in the air
so that I could excel in my studies.
Donn and Krista are the smartest people I know. I looked up to each of them since I was
a child. Both of them taught me what it meant to be the smartest kid in the class; however, being
passionate about what one learns is always more important. While both of them were gone too
soon, their passion and knowledge are still here within me.
I dedicate this dissertation to all of the many strong women in my life who curtailed or
delayed their educational dreams on behalf of their families, particularly Grandma Frances,
Grandma Sally, and my mother. Their sacrifices have provided me the opportunity to do great
things with my education. It is my hope that this work makes them proud of why they made the
choices that they did.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 10
Limitations and Delimitations 11
Definition of Terms 11
Organization of the Dissertation 15
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Background 16
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs 18
Access to Technology 21
Support of Technology Use 23
Pedagogy 25
Benefits When Teachers Embrace Technology 27
Promising Practices 29
Theoretical Frameworks 32
Summary and Critique of the Literature 34
Chapter 3: Methodology 36
Sample and Population 37
Research Design 38
Conceptual Framework 38
Research Questions 41
Instrumentation 41
Validity and Reliability 43
Table 1: Research Design and Instrumentation Alignment 44
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 47
Chapter 4: Presentation of the Data 49
Methodology 49
Participants in the Study 52
Initial Visit to Baxter High School 52
Findings for Research Question 1 53
Findings for Research Question 2 55
A Supportive Culture 56
Professional Development Opportunities 57
Collaboration With Colleagues 58
Findings for Research Question 3 59
Findings for Research Question 4 62
Emergent Themes 64
Emergent Themes and the Four Frames of Leadership 64
The Structural Frame and Emergent Theme 1 65
The Human Resource Frame and Emergent Theme 2 66
The Symbolic Frame and Emergent Theme 3 67
Chapter Summary 68
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 5
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 70
Purpose, Significance, and Methodology of the Study 71
Discussion of Findings 71
Implications for Practice 75
Recommendations for Future Research 77
Conclusion 77
References 79
Appendices
Appendix A: Document Review Protocol 87
Appendix B: Educational Staff Survey Protocol 88
Appendix C: Educational Staff Interview Protocol 90
Appendix D: Classroom Observation Protocol 92
Appendix E: Educational Staff Survey Results 94
Appendix F: Triangulation Chart 96
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPACK) conceptual framework 39
Figure 2: Substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) conceptual
framework 40
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 7
ABSTRACT
This qualitative case study examined the role of instructional technology in the teaching
and learning process. The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school
that is actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. Using
Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) and Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) as conceptual frameworks for analyzing technology integration
and Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership to analyze the organizational leadership, three
themes emerged that characterized the school’s integration and implementation of technology in
the classroom. Support of teachers, in the form of professional development, coaching, and tech-
nical assistance, in the integration and implementation of technology plays a vital role in the
degree to which the technology transforms instructional practices and merges the technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge of teachers. A teacher’s technological skills are paramount
in the willingness to invest time, explore new resources, and take risks in the integration of tech-
nology in the classroom. Individual teacher beliefs about the role of technology help to lay the
foundation for empowering students in the learning process in a technology-enabled classroom.
Findings from this case study revealed that, when a culture of support that includes shared lead-
ership, experimentation, instructional coaching, collaboration, and campus-wide access technol-
ogy integration can transform the teaching and learning process.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 8
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Simply adding technology to K–12 environments does not improve learning. What
matters is how it is used to develop knowledge and skills” (Zucker & Light, 2009, p. 84). As
21st-century citizens, students must be able to use technology as a resource to collaborate, com-
municate, think critically, and create (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). Current
research has identified a gap in the use of technology as an instructional tool in classrooms
across the United States (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, &
Sendurur, 2012; Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Kopcha, 2012). Technology is
being used to increase efficiency and productivity in the classroom rather than to advance stu-
dents’ depth of knowledge and skills (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Koehler &
Mishra, 2009; Puentedura, 2013). Educators who make this shift have incorporated this in their
pedagogy.
Background of the Problem
Overall, the instructional practices of most educators have been stagnant and have not
evolved alongside changing society. Often, teachers are the keepers of knowledge, telling
students how to solve problems rather than creating a student-centered classroom that assists
students in creating their own solutions (Fairman, 2004). This is especially true in the use of
technology. Computers have been in the classrooms for more than 30 years but have traditionally
been used to make classrooms more efficient or for individual basic skill development (An &
Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012). When integrated into instruction, technology provides a
powerful tool that can be used to expose students to resources that are not available, while also
promoting students’ application and expansion of the knowledge gained in the classroom.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 9
As teachers begin to switch their instructional practices to support inquiry, they need
tools and resources far beyond the traditional worksheets and ancillary materials provided with a
textbook. They need the means to create learning experiences that keep pace with the ever-
changing world. Instructional activities must allow them to practice asking questions, delving
deeper in their understanding, and presenting their findings. Students need to be able to rehearse
their analytical practices in finding multiple solutions to complex problems, evaluating the
quality of possible solutions, and explaining the reasoning behind their solutions (Larson &
Miller, 2011). Integrating technology into curriculum and instruction can provide these resources
and these opportunities (Fairman, 2004; Lazakidou & Retailis, 2012).
In today’s global economy, the competition for high-paying, sustainable jobs is fierce
(Holzer, 2012). If students are to be able to support themselves and provide for their families,
they will need to gain not only skills that are specific to particular fields, they will need the soft
skills that make them strong candidates for employment. Students need to be able to communi-
cate ideas in various formats, collaborate with others to work as a team, and build relationships
with supervisors and peers (Holzer, 2012; Larson & Miller, 2011). Technology in the classroom
can help to create opportunities for students to develop these skills.
Statement of the Problem
Technology is a tool to increase student collaboration, communication, critical thinking,
and creativity. However the presence of K–12 classroom technology has increased, its integra-
tion and implementation are inconsistent. No Child Left Behind’s legacy of teaching for memo-
rization versus understanding and the lean financial times in California since 2008 have been
replaced. Today’s standards focus on preparing students to be college and career ready, and the
education-friendly budget of the local control funding formula (LCFF) allows schools to
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 10
purchase the tools needed to accomplish these goals (California Department of Education, 2014;
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). This study focuses on the factors needed for a school
to integrate and implement technology.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is
actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. Through an
examination of multiple aspects of the instructional program, the researcher reports how Baxter
High School (pseudonym) is using technology to affect teaching and learning. The findings will
increase the information available for schools that are looking to refine their instructional tech-
nology practices. Data included in the analysis and findings will be used to address four research
questions:
1. How do educators at Baxter High School integrate technology to support students’
learning?
2. To what factors do educators at Baxter High School attribute their knowledge of
instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at Baxter High School provided support for technology
integration and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at Baxter
High School?
Significance of the Study
Using a qualitative approach, this study provides a thick and rich description of how one
high school has actively integrated and implemented technology in its curriculum and instruc-
tion. Through case study methods, the researcher identified common themes that emerged during
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 11
the data analysis phase of the study regarding the technology-related practices of teachers,
administrators, and instructional support staff. These patterns and strategies can be shared with
educators, policymakers, community members, researchers, and others interested in technology
integration and implementation as an insightful example. The use of multiple conceptual frame-
works can also serve as a basis for replication of the study.
Limitations and Delimitations
The major limitation of this study is that it is a single case study and therefore findings
cannot be generalized. Emerging themes and the characteristics of the study are specific to this
school, in this district, at this time, as specified in the research questions.
Using a rich and thick description, readers can decide which aspects of the study are
applicable to their particular situation and to what extent those aspects can be transferred.
Through purposeful sampling, the researcher selected a school that would ensure the maximum
amount of information about active integration and implementation. The study adds to the hori-
zontal accumulation of knowledge (Merriam, 2009). The researcher chose to focus on the per-
spectives of educators, choosing not to seek feedback from students, parents, or community
members.
Definition of Terms
Throughout the dissertation, the researcher refers to specific terms, agencies, and reports.
The following terms are defined operationally for use in this dissertation.
1:1 initiative: The practice of providing each student with an individual computing
device, such as a tablet or laptop, to be used in the classroom and at home (Valiente, 2010).
21st-century skills: The skills, knowledge, and expertise that students must master to be
college and career ready in the 21st century; in addition to content knowledge, students must
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 12
understand the larger themes of globalization, innovation, information, and technology (Partner-
ship for 21st Century Skills, 2011).
A–G eligibility: Students seeking admittance to the University of California or California
State University systems must complete a series of courses in English, mathematics, history,
laboratory science, fine arts, and foreign language with a grade of C or better. Courses that
qualify for these requirements are designed to prepare students for higher education and the
workplace (Ravitch, 2007).
Achievement gap: Disparity between academic performance by one group of students and
that of another group that, over time, is statistically significantly different. Traditionally, charac-
teristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status are used to identify
particular groups (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
California Distinguished School: Recognition of schools that demonstrate significant
gains in narrowing the achievement gap (California Department of Education, 2015b).
California Gold Ribbon School: Recognition of schools that have made gains in imple-
menting the academic performance standards of the state, temporarily replacing the California
Distinguished Schools award (California Department of Education, 2015b).
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): Assessment required for all California
public high school students that measures competency in reading, writing, and mathematics,
beginning with the class of 2006. The assessment was suspended in 2015 so that it could be rede-
signed to align with the 2010 California Content Standards (California Department of Education,
2015a).
Coaching: The action of expert educators helping other educators to improve their prac-
tice, usually through ongoing support, modeling, and feedback (Ravitch, 2007).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13
Collaboration: A regularly scheduled opportunity for educators to meet to share and dis-
cuss ideas to inform their teaching practices (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010).
Digital divide: Gap between those with access to technology and those without such
access (Ravitch, 2007).
Digital learning: Learning that is facilitated by technology, giving students an element of
control over time, place, path, and/or pace (Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2014).
Four Cs: Part of the 21st-century skills: collaboration, communication, critical thinking,
and creativity (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011).
Four frames: A conceptual model for understanding organizations and leadership that
includes the following categories: human resource (relationships), political (advocacy), structural
(system design), and symbolic (culture; Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Graduation rate: The 4-year adjusted cohort rate that includes the percentage of students
who graduate from high school with a regular diploma in 4 years (U.S. Department of Education,
2008).
Instructional support staff: Non-classroom teachers who support the instructional
program of a school, including paraprofessionals, technology coaches, technology specialists,
professional development facilitators, and instructional coaches.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP): Under California’s LCFF for K–12 educa-
tion, all districts are required to prepare a plan that describes how they will meet annual goals
with specific actions such as resource allocation and progress monitoring that address the state
and local priorities in the areas of conditions for learning, pupil outcomes, and engagement (Cali-
fornia Parent Teacher Association, 2014).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 14
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): 2001 federal legislation renewing the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requiring that all students, regardless of current level or aca-
demic program, be proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics by 2014. States were
required to develop annual tests for students to demonstrate their level of proficiency. Schools
not meeting their growth targets were penalized. NCLB was replaced by the Every Child Suc-
ceeds Act in December 2015 (U.S. Congress, 2002).
Professional development: Training intended to teach educators the knowledge and skills
related to teaching and learning, including areas of curriculum, instruction, and technology
(Ravitch, 2007).
Project-based learning (PBL): Teaching strategy based on students learning by doing
engaging activities that lead to the creation of products based on their own experiences (Ravitch,
2007).
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): With the passage of Proposition 98, schools
were required to produce an annual report to disseminate to the public. SARCs must include
information about the school’s staffing, facilities, resources, and student achievement (California
Department of Education, 2015e).
Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED): A term used to describe students who partici-
pate in the National School Lunch Program or students whose parent did not graduate from high
school (California Department of Education, 2006; Ravitch, 2007).
Walk-throughs: Non-evaluative classroom visits by administrators and instructional
coaches lasting approximately 4–8 minutes for the purpose of gathering data about instruction
across a district, school, or department (Feeney, 2014).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 15
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC): One of six regional accrediting
associations in the United States. Through a self-study process and on-site visitation, schools are
reviewed to validate that the educational programs and services offered to students are of quality,
integrity, and currency (WASC, 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 identified the topic, provided a synopsis of the current information available
regarding the role of technology in teaching and learning, and discussed the disconnect between
technology and instruction. The chapter contained the purpose of the study, the significance of
the research, the research questions, the limitations and delimitations, and the definition of terms.
Chapter 2 provides a review of current literature related to technology in education. The scope of
the literature review includes information on teachers’ beliefs, benefits of using technology,
access to technology, teacher pedagogy, and support for educators who utilize technology. The
reviewed literature includes examples of best practices where integration and implementation are
occurring in individual teacher classrooms. Chapter 3 describes the methodology for the study at
Baxter High School, detailing the process followed to select the sample, create the research
design, apply the conceptual framework, develop the instruments, and test for validity and relia-
bility. Specific descriptions of the steps for data collection and data analysis are set forth.
Chapter 4 reports the pertinent findings from the study. Chapter 5 presents a discussion the find-
ings, identifies implications for technology as part of teaching and learning, and provides rec-
ommendations for further research.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter the researcher establishes the foundation for the purpose of this study
through an examination of the existing literature. The first section presents an overview of tech-
nology in education, including discussions of teachers’ beliefs, access to technological resources,
support for technology integration, and benefits when teachers embrace technology. In the
second section, examples of promising practices for integrating and implementing technology in
K–12 classrooms are shared. Then conceptual frameworks that offer a theoretical explanation as
to how integration and implementation of technology can transform teaching and learning are
presented. The last section contains a critique of the literature and identifies the gaps in the
current literature. This analysis supports the explicit need for the study and the lens that the case
study used to focus on implementation and integration.
Background
The U.S. Commerce Department (2011) reported that 96% of American workers used
technology to communicate and carry out their jobs. From 1998 to 2008, the field of Information
Technology grew 4 times faster than the overall job market, and Internet-related jobs comprised
more than $300 billion of the national economy in 2009 (U.S. Commerce Department, 2011).
Given this information, it is evident that technology has permeated society; students must build a
comprehensive set of technological skills to interact with, manipulate, and enhance the technolo-
gies that characterize the 21st century.
Technology in the classroom is not a new phenomenon; every decade has some form of
technology that enters a teacher’s instructional toolbox. Whether it was the evolution of chalk-
boards to whiteboards, typewriters to word processors, or notebook paper to mobile devices,
teachers have had to adapt to the instruments of the time. Throughout these changes, however, it
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 17
has not been firmly established how technology can be used as an instructional tool that funda-
mentally alters teaching and learning, rather than just as a tool to increase efficiency (Ertmer et
al., 2012; Zucker & Light, 2009). The 21st-century student already embraces technology in the
way he or she conceives the world and utilizes it as a resource for discovery and articulation of
new knowledge.
Research has demonstrated that learning, at its most meaningful level, involves a partner-
ship between the teacher and the learner whereby the learner is actively engaged in creating con-
nections among topics to apply knowledge from one learning opportunity to another through
carefully constructed experiences that the teacher facilitates (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett,
& Norman, 2010). The best practices known to have a positive effect on learning have been
fairly well established in the educational community. However, the same cannot be said about
the pedagogy of instructional technology.
In order to create 21st-century citizens who can compete in the global job market, schools
must provide opportunities for students to learn how to research information, solve problems,
and communicate in various settings (Education Technology Task Force, 2014; Holzer, 2012;
Larson & Miller, 2011; Norris, Sullivan, & Poirot, 2003). Students who can persevere through
complex tasks, develop novel solutions to a problem, and collaborate with peers will be the
adults who advance society (Larson & Miller, 2011). In order to learn these skills fully, students
must have the opportunity to practice them in numerous environments and situations (Larson &
Miller, 2011; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). This practice should include the use of
technology to demonstrate their learning (Larson & Miller, 2011). Just as educators discuss the
idea that students move from “learning to read” to “reading to learn,” this same approach should
be taken with technology. Schools that provide experiences for students that evolve from
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 18
“learning to use technology” to “using technology to learn” can play a powerful role in preparing
the 21st-century learner.
The incorporation of technology as an integrated tool for both teaching and learning has
the potential to shift classrooms into an inquiry-minded environment in which students can make
meaning of the course of study and apply this knowledge in various settings (Costa & Kallick,
2010; Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, & Goldman, 2014; Education Technology Task Force,
2014; Keane, Keane, & Bilcblau, 2013; Lazakidou & Retailis, 2012; Niguidula, 2010; Popejoy,
2003; Puentedura, 2013; Sheskey, 2010; Shieh, 2012; Zucker & Light, 2009). Technology-
enriched classrooms lend themselves to interdisciplinary learning opportunities, helping students
see the connections between topics of study, which can lead to the realization that the world is
interconnected. By dispelling the notion that knowledge is stored in silos, only to be applied
when tasks or problems repeat themselves, students are better equipped to make sense of
complex situations in a variety of settings. Learning in a technology-enriched school makes this
more feasible (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Education Technology Task Force, 2014; Koehler
& Mishra, 2009; Puentedura, 2013; Zucker & Light, 2009).
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs
Several studies have shown that utilization of technology as an instructional tool is
directly related to the teacher’s attitudes and beliefs regarding its ability to increase student
learning and understanding of the topic of study (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012;
Hew & Brush, 2007; Kim et al., 2013; Matzen & Edmonds, 2007; Popejoy, 2003; Shieh, 2012).
The new technological and pedagogical knowledge that teachers must process and then incorpo-
rate into their instructional strategies requires a significant amount of change. Educators must be
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 19
open minded, adaptable, enduring, and brave as they adopt these new mental models and prac-
tices (Costa & Kallick, 2010).
Educators who view themselves as responsible for guiding or facilitating the learning
process recognize the possibilities that technology can foster (Popejoy, 2003). In a 2002 survey
of more than 4,000 teachers across the United States, the best predictor of classroom technology
use related to the teachers’ belief that students demonstrate a deeper level of understanding
content when technology is used in the teaching and learning process (Norris et al., 2003). Also
closely linked to the integration of technology were teachers’ beliefs about the speed of learning
and technology’s potential influence on the rate of learning in the classroom (Kim et al., 2013).
Teachers who teachers believe that technology has a potential to influence student
achievement positively are more likely to incorporate it into their practices (Ertmer et al., 2012;
Kim et al., 2013; Kopcha, 2012). A constructivist-minded practitioner will look for student-
centered approaches to technology to incorporate in the classroom (Matzen & Edmonds, 2007).
A 2011 survey by the Public Broadcasting Service found that teachers who found value in tech-
nology believed that variety was also an important factor in integration and transformation. They
viewed portable devices that connected to the Internet, simulations, response devices, and digital
media as supportive of student creativity, as well (Sundeen, 2013).
The literature points out that teachers who perceive technology simply as an add-on are
more likely to use it as a reward system and not derive all potential benefits of instructional tech-
nology. Educators who believe that computers will not influence student growth or achievement
will fail to provide any sort of enhancement to the learning (Hew & Brush, 2007; Shieh, 2012).
In a 2012 study of a Taiwanese high school science department, researchers found that the teach-
ers considered technology to be a distraction. Even after specialized training in technology-
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 20
enhanced pedagogy, those teachers could not relate to how technology would increase learning
because they themselves had been able to learn as high school students without technology
(Shieh, 2012).
Teachers who felt more comfortable about using technology were more likely to alter
their practices and integrate technology in the classroom (Matzen & Edmonds, 2007). Teachers’
beliefs about their own skills at using and integrating technology are essential, affecting their
self-efficacy with implementation (Ertmer et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2013). Teachers who were
comfortable with allowing students to “teach” them how to use the various forms of technology
were also better able to make use of technology (Fairman, 2004). When teachers accept that in
many cases their students have a better understanding of technology tools, they are better able to
incorporate those tools and foster a more authentic problem-solving environment for their
students (Fairman, 2004).
Many of the findings regarding teacher beliefs can also be said to apply to administrators.
The school principal is ultimately responsible for implementation and integration, and it is her
leadership that determines the extent of that implementation and integration (Schrum, Galizio, &
Ledesma, 2011; Leonard & Leonard, 2006). The principal sets expectations and models the
philosophy for schoolwide technology implementation (Schrum et al., 2011). If principals do not
believe that technology can transform teaching and learning, or if they believe that technology
should be used only to facilitate productivity, teachers will translate that philosophy into their
own actions (Schrum et al., 2011; Leonard & Leonard, 2006). Leonard and Leonard’s 2006 study
of Louisiana school districts found that, despite site administrators’ beliefs about technology as
an important method to transform curriculum and instruction, many reported that their teachers
were ill prepared and lacked understanding of the principles of technology integration as it
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 21
applied to their instructional practices. Many of the administrators were insecure about their own
ability to provide the type of leadership that their school needed to implement technology suc-
cessfully (Leonard & Leonard, 2006).
The literature noted that one of the ways in which administrators could address teachers’
beliefs and facilitate technology implementation and integration was by creating a collaborative
and supportive environment (Schrum et al., 2011). If the administration supported a collaborative
culture where teachers could share and mentor one another’s development, the teachers were
more likely to take risks, ask questions, and expand their technological skills. This type of
experimental environment helps teachers to be more reflective in their practices and their beliefs
(An & Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Kim et al., 2013).
Access to Technology
Many 21st-century learners have lived their entire lives connected to technology
(Sheskey, 2010). This generation of students is accustomed to instantaneous action and com-
munication through the Internet (Keane et al., 2013). They have grown up connected to infor-
mation, peers, and the anonymous online community, and they rely on that sense of
interconnectedness in their lives (Keane et al., 2013; Sheskey, 2010). Teachers who provide
opportunities for students to use technology to access the above-mentioned networks help to
bridge the gap to their curriculum and instruction by allowing students to meld their soft skills
and academic skills (Keane et al., 2013; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011).
If teachers are to be expected to integrate technology in their daily instructional practices,
the technology must be readily accessible, current, and supported. Norris et al. (2003) found that
K-12 educators considered access to be the strongest indicator of technology integration and
implementation. Students in classrooms with nominal access are at a clear disadvantage
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 22
compared to their peers who are able to make use of technological resources during the learning
process (Norris et al., 2003). Reports from the U.S. Commerce Department recognize that tech-
nology use is an integral part of life in the United States; however, one third of American homes
lack Internet access, creating a digital divide between the haves and have-nots (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2013). This divide is exacerbated in terms of race/ethnicity and income level (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2014). As of 2011, access to computers and the Internet in Hispanic and Afri-
can American households was approximately 18% below that of Caucasian households. Income
level is an even stronger predictor of access, with 96% of households with yearly earnings of
$100,000 or more having access, compared to just over half of households earning $25,000 or
less (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).
Technology in the classroom also increases rural students’ access to the same educational
opportunities as their peers in suburban and urban areas (Sundeen, 2013). Many students on the
disadvantaged side of the digital divide must rely heavily on school-based resources for technol-
ogy. Unfortunately, schools with the highest percentages of SED students are also the schools
more likely to lack digital resources, thus creating an additional inequity in educational oppor-
tunities for the neediest students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014).
When teachers have access to the appropriate resources, such as computer labs, interac-
tive whiteboards, response systems, tablets or laptops, and the software that allows teachers and
students to use these kinds of hardware, teachers are better equipped to integrate technology into
their instruction (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Fairman, 2004; Kopcha, 2012). Stu-
dents who can access technology on an individual and consistent basis, particularly SED stu-
dents, are more likely to become fluent in using technology for various purposes (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2014). If teachers’ access to these resources is limited, implementation is likely
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 23
to be at a superficial level rather than an assimilated part of the daily instruction. Teachers are
also less apt to create technology-enhanced learning opportunities that demand that their students
reach analyzing, evaluating, or creating levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (An & Reigeluth,
2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Kopcha, 2012; Krathwohl, 2006; Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, 2011; Puentedura, 2013). Access must include an adequate amount of
technology in locations that students and teachers can easily access (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Support of Technology Use
Many studies have indicated that support for integration and implementation was para-
mount. Support was described in a several of ways, including professional development, time to
collaborate, leadership from administration, school culture, and mechanical support (An &
Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Fairman, 2004; Hew & Brush, 2007;
Kopcha, 2012; Lazakidou & Retailis, 2012; Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Matzen & Edmonds,
2007; Ritzhaupt, Dawson, & Cavanaugh, 2012; Schrum et al., 2011; Shieh, 2012; Zucker &
Light, 2009). Schools that failed to provide this support faced an uphill battle in changing teach-
ers’ beliefs on the potential impact of technology, much less in shifting their pedagogy.
The Nellie Mae Education Foundation found that only 23% of teachers in the United
States felt confident in using technology as part of their curriculum and instruction (Moeller &
Reitzes, 2011). This supports findings that professional development was the prime indicator of
successful integration and implementation in 13 reviewed studies. When teachers received
instruction that was appropriate to their level of understanding, could be applied to their instruc-
tional practices immediately, and included follow-up by a mentor or coach, their implementation
of technology was far superior (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012; Fairman, 2004; Kim
et al., 2013; Kopcha, 2012; Lazakidou & Retailis, 2012). Professional development experiences
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 24
that provided teachers with the skills and knowledge to implement specific technology as it
applies to content and curriculum were more likely to be used in the classroom (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Ritzhaupt et al., 2012). When teachers view the
new skills as isolated from their daily practices, implementation is more likely to be non-existent
or inconsistent at best (Matzen & Edmonds, 2007). Furthermore, professional development that
includes a wide range of participants, gives hands-on opportunities, and takes place over a long
period is more productive (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Shieh,
2012). Shieh (2012) found that, when teachers with a broader range of beliefs and experience
were brought together for professional development, they were more motivated to listen to their
colleagues and try practices that others had found to be useful. Extending the time for teachers to
practice their new learning also promoted successful implementation that in turn increased teach-
ers’ willingness to experiment with new technologies.
Several studies have pointed to providing teachers opportunities to collaborate and
explore methods of integrating technology as an important part of the professional development
process (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Kim et al., 2013). Schools with robust professional learning
communities that meet regularly to discuss ways to refine teaching and learning can take
advantage of this collaborative network, providing an outlet for teachers to share and explore
new ways to integrate technology that transforms their pedagogy (An & Reigeluth, 2012). High-
functioning collegial teams are more likely to open their classrooms for others to observe or
allow for demonstrations (An & Reigeluth, 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; Kopcha, 2012). These
teams are also more likely to respond to support by a coach or mentor because they believe in the
possibility of continuously improving their instructional practices (Kopcha, 2012).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 25
Administrators can provide support for technology integration and implementation by
creating a vision that guides and supports technology use (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Schrum et al., 2011). When administrators establish that technology
in the classroom is a priority and model their own implementation and integration, teachers are
more likely to make technology use a priority (Schrum et al., 2011). The administrator can
further support implementation and integration by creating a culture of risk taking and innova-
tion by the teachers (Schrum et al., 2011). Setting the expectation that quality teaching includes
technology use to transform pedagogy and providing feedback regarding teachers’ efforts to shift
their instructional practices fosters a culture that supports the implementation and integration of
technology in the teaching and learning process (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Schrum et
al., 2011).
Just as a broken blackboard or absence of chalk would stall instruction at the turn on the
20th century, technology that has not been maintained creates the same barrier for 21st-century
instruction. Teachers need hardware and software that is up to date and working properly
(Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; Leonard & Leonard, 2006). This includes personnel
and resources to support and maintain these systems. The researcher was unable to locate any
literature purporting to describe an ideal model for technical support or addressing the issue of
whether it was best handled at a site-based level or at a centralized level.
Pedagogy
Teachers who have anchored their instructional philosophy on a constructivist perspec-
tive seem to be more amenable to embracing technology as a tool to transform the teaching and
learning in their classroom to that of discovery and inquiry (Ertmer et al., 2012). By building on
their knowledge and beliefs about how learning happens, these teachers are able to shift their
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 26
pedagogical practices when integrating technology. This includes design of lessons, method of
assessment, and channel of feedback (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007).
Based on the reciprocal nature of constructivist learning theory, these teachers use tech-
nology to transform instructional practices from a focus on individual learning to a focus on col-
lective learning. Applying Costa and Kallick’s (2010) habits of mind, when teachers change their
minds about how they teach, they are more likely to provide opportunities that address the “four
Cs” in their approach. Teachers and students can generate the curriculum and lessons as partners.
Strategies that ask students to research a topic, create documentaries, or develop a blog permit
students to contribute to the teaching and learning process, as well as to construct their own
meanings about the content (Costa & Kallick, 2010). Practices such as these not only expose
students to 21st-century skills but also demonstrate the transformation levels of the Substitution
Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model (Costa & Kallick, 2010; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2014; Holzer, 2012; Moeller & Reitzes, 201; Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, 2011; Puentedura, 2013; Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014).
Assessment strategies must also adapt when using technology as an instructional tool.
Lessons that lend themselves to helping the student to develop a deeper meaning do not align to
the traditional approach to assessment (Costa & Kallick, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007). If a student
is given the task of creating a podcast to teach other students a particular concept, this becomes
the authentic assessment that is applicable to the real world. Giving this same student a
standardized multiple-choice test, with only one right answer for each question, would never
reveal the student’s depth of knowledge (Hew & Brush, 2007). The same could be said for
allowing students to use technology to manipulate the content and develop understanding but
then removing it during testing, as is often the case with a graphing calculator (Hew & Brush,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 27
2007). True technology integration causes a paradigm shift in how assessments are used and
administered (Costa & Kallick, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007). It is time to shift from judging
intelligence based on the knowledge that students can memorize and to measuring learning by
how well a student can apply that knowledge to the real world (Sheskey, 2010).
As technology integration shifts the method for assessment, so does the vehicle for
providing feedback to students. Through technology, teachers can provide feedback much
sooner, in some cases in real time. Adopting software that has students submit essays through an
online grading program or contribute to discussion threads moderated by the teacher or respond-
ers that have students post their answers when teachers check for understanding allows the
teacher to diagnose obstacles and adjust the direction of the instruction (Costa & Kallick, 2010;
Hew & Brush, 2007; Moeller & Reitzes, 2011; Sheskey, 2010). Applications and software also
allow students to respond to their peers, changing the nature of how feedback is given (Costa &
Kallick, 2010). Students benefit from the opportunity for self-analysis and self-evaluation,
reaching the metacognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy and the critical thinking of the four Cs
through reflection (Costa & Kallick, 2010; Krathwohl, 2006; Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
2011; Sheskey, 2010).
Benefits When Teachers Embrace Technology
When teachers and students utilize tools such as computer labs, interactive whiteboards,
response systems, tablets or laptops, and the various software programs that accompany this
hardware, the resources that are available for conveying, discovering, and applying knowledge
are increased exponentially. As outlined in the framework developed by the Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (2011), students must learn to critically think, be creative, collaborate with others,
and communicate through multiple modalities. Students can master these and become college
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 28
and career ready through the integration and implementation of technology in the classroom
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2014).
When technology is involved, students are far more active in the learning process and the
various ways of demonstrating their learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Ertmer et al.,
2012; Matzen & Edmonds, 2007). With each successful experience, students’ self-efficacy and
attitudes about learning also change (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). There is a shift in their
learning focus from skill building to problem solving, which advances their opportunity to dis-
cover solutions in an authentic setting (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Ertmer et al., 2012;
Matzen & Edmonds, 2007). In a PBL environment, students are engaged at an inquiry level and
able to connect content from multiple subjects. They are able to analyze and evaluate infor-
mation to determine what they need to solve problems (Baker, 2010). Technology use aids in
these endeavors by allowing students to access data, determine credibility, check for bias, and
either accept or reject the claim. They learn quickly how data-driven decision making can help
them to craft a solution that is credible and applicable to the real world (Baker, 2010; Matzen &
Edmonds, 2007). Technology integration builds higher-order thinking skills.
By altering the philosophy and practice of teaching and learning, the partnership between
teachers and students in the teaching and learning process benefits from the opportunities for
creativity and innovation. Aligned with a constructivist approach, teachers are beginning to use
technology to share responsibility for the learning process with their students (Matzen &
Edmonds, 2007; Moeller & Reitzes, 2011). The locus of control in the classroom shifts, giving
students the opportunity to determine what the instruction will look like. Teachers become facil-
itators in these situations, guiding the learning, and providing feedback. The student becomes the
designer of content and authentic assessments, creating podcasts to explain concepts to peers or
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 29
making original visual representations of collected data (Matzen & Edmonds, 2007; November,
2010). The shift in roles allows the student to try novel approaches to solving problems and
develop a mental model for understanding the world because the technology puts the student in
control of the learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Ertmer et al., 2012).
The increased level of interaction that technology promotes opens the door to greater
levels of collaboration and communication for students and teachers. Whether through group
projects in the classroom, telecommunications with other classrooms around the world, or virtual
discussions with experts, students learn the necessity of working cooperatively, sharing ideas,
and listening to others (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Ertmer et al., 2012; Matzen & Edmonds,
2007; November, 2010). When students can talk through concepts and give feedback to one
another, they are much more engaged in the learning process (Matzen & Edmonds, 2007). A
sense of collective intelligence, or the approach that more minds mean better solutions, changes
the culture of the classroom (Wilmarth, 2010). Students who collaborate through technology
become part of a learning community that values the exchange of ideas and appreciates contri-
butions by others (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; November, 2010).
Promising Practices
As described in prior sections of this review, the literature provides examples of technol-
ogy being used to shift the instructional approach rather than being used simply to increase the
efficiency of teachers and students (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). It appears that these instances
are happening in isolated pockets of K–12 education systems. However, there is much to be
learned from these paradigm shifts that can identify conditions necessary to transform teaching
and learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Puentedura, 2013; Wagner,
2008).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 30
San Diego’s High Tech High School (HTH) appears to be a model for technology inte-
gration and implementation at a transformational level. Providing highly engaging learning
opportunities that help students to become college and career ready is the philosophy for HTH’s
teachers (Wagner, 2008). Instruction focuses on challenges that forces students to work in teams,
find solutions to complex problems, and develop their own products of learning. The school
culture embraced the four Cs before they were created by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills
(Moeller & Reitzes, 2011; Wagner, 2008). The school uses technology to provide a great deal of
personalization for students. Specialty labs for biotechnology or robotics, art rooms for digital
media and sculpture, and open stations where students discuss and collaborate are distinguishing
features of the school. Students use digital portfolios that provide snapshots of their progress.
The technology embedded in the curriculum and instructional practices helps to prepare students
for a required 10-week internship (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011; Wagner, 2008).
Located in a California coastal city, Lincoln Middle School has adopted a format in
which students have designed tutorial content and resources (November, 2010). Using movie-
making software, students recorded themselves completing mathematics problems. Through each
step in the process, the students think aloud, explaining the steps in their own words and demon-
strating meta-cognition by asking aloud why certain steps were taken or how they knew the pro-
cedure was correct. With the help of the school, students uploaded this library of resources for
other students to utilize. This database of tutorials can be accessed at any time by any student in
the world who is struggling with mathematics.
Teachers at Lincoln Middle School have also used the screencasts in their instructional
cycle to model a process or provide outreach to students. When appropriate, they recommend the
screencasts to students and parents for additional support. Teachers have found that the students
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 31
who are involved in creating these tutorials are more engaged in the learning process because
they want to develop original material for their screencasts and because they have additional
resources to which to refer when they are struggling with a concept. When stepping into the role
of the tutor, the students at Lincoln are practicing three of the four Cs through creation of a
problem, critically thinking to find a solution, and communicating that solution to their audience
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Krathwohl, 2006; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011;
Puentedura, 2013; November, 2010).
The literature also points to adoption of digital portfolios as another promising practice
that is being embraced by many teachers and learning teams. Whether courses are offered in a
traditional format or as an online course, teachers and students are using digital portfolios to
monitor the growth of student learning, as well as to create a roadmap for how teachers can
revise the curriculum and instructional practices (Niguidula, 2010). Like a traditional portfolio,
these portfolios are collections of student work that demonstrate the student’s mastery of learn-
ing. A major difference is that digital portfolios allow students to demonstrate their mastery in
ways that could not be captured on paper (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011; Niguidula, 2010). Selecting
assignments that demonstrate the student’s development in the four Cs is also better aligned to
the digital portfolio format, including recordings of the student discussing her level of under-
standing in a particular mathematical practice or testing her hypothesis in a science experiment
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Hew & Brush, 2007; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Krathwohl,
2006; Moeller & Reitzes, 2011; Niguidula, 2010; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011).
Mt. Hope High School in Rhode Island uses digital portfolios as part of their senior
project to demonstrate proficiency toward graduation. The students and teachers engage in dia-
logue about the artifacts in the portfolio, as well as reflections from the students and feedback
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 32
from the teachers. The students then present these portfolios to an audience, discussing their
progress toward mastery. This public process encourages teachers to provide opportunities for
students to demonstrate real-world applications. It also requires teachers to push themselves in
the quality of instruction and its alignment with highlighting students’ strengths and responding
to students’ weaknesses (Niguidula, 2010).
Theoretical Frameworks
Two well-established theoretical frameworks for examining implementation and integra-
tion of technology in K–12 schools are Ruben Puentedura’s (2013) SAMR model and Koehler
and Mishra’s (2009) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. Both
frameworks create a vivid description of the ideal practices that can transform teaching and
learning through implementation and integration of technology. These frameworks gave the
researcher a lens for focusing the investigation of this case study.
Grounded in constructivism, where learners make meaning through the amalgamation of
prior and new knowledge to develop an understanding, the SAMR model offers a framework for
understanding the impact of technology on teaching and learning (Keane et al., 2013). If person-
alized learning that leads to a deep understanding is the goal, educators must consider how tech-
nology can assist teachers and learners in creating a quality experience that moves students
beyond remembering facts in disconnected ways to discovering the relationships of ideas (Keane
et al., 2013; Krathwohl, 2006).
Puentedura’s SAMR model disaggregates technology integration into two groups, each
group containing two levels. When technology is integrated at the substitution level, it is merely
a tool to accomplish a task, as opposed to a tool that changes the learning process (Puentedura,
2013; Romrell et al., 2014). If the technology improves the learning process but the cognitive
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 33
demands are still at the surface level, the technology has simply augmented instruction (Keane et
al., 2013; Puentedura, 2013). While in both cases the learning is enriched, teaching and learning
have not dramatically shifted; hence, these two stages are grouped as an enhancement for learn-
ing.
When technology is used to restructure the learning experience, it is categorized as a
modification (Puentedura, 2013). When technology is used at a final level of redefinition, the
teaching and learning tasks are not just remodeled; they are completely replaced by something
that is original and not possible without that technology tool (Keane et al., 2013, Puentedura,
2013; Romrell et al., 2014). These last two levels are classified as transformative because the
learning that occurs is not merely altered but revolutionized, allowing for a deeply student-
centered learning experience (Keane et al., 2013; Matzen & Edmonds, 2007; Puentedura, 2013).
The second theoretical framework that provides a reference point for the use of technol-
ogy to change teaching and learning fundamentally is Koehler and Mishra’s TPACK model.
Building on Shulman’s PCK descriptions, TPACK adds technology knowledge to the pedagogy
and content knowledge to define what effective teachers must intertwine in their instructional
practices. The ability to thread together seamlessly these three areas of knowledge is the hall-
mark of an expert teacher (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge are crucial as individual strands. However, when these areas are connected and
applied to instructional practices, dynamic learning environments are created (Koehler & Mishra,
2009). When teachers develop their skills by melding these areas of knowledge, the ideal situa-
tion for learning exists. If the relationship between strands is appreciated, technology is no longer
seen as a separate entity that makes surface-level changes that simply increase efficiency in
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 34
teaching and learning; rather, it is seen as something that assists in providing students with per-
sonalized, high-quality learning experiences (Keane et al., 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Summary and Critique of the Literature
After careful analysis of the existing research on the impact of technology on teaching
and learning, the researcher sought to expand the knowledge of how technology has been inte-
grated seamlessly into secondary school classrooms and how schools have overcome barriers to
that integration. Much of the available literature lacks specific examples of how schools have
created an environment that fosters risk taking and experimentation on the part of teachers and
students—characteristics that have been shown to promote integration and transformation
(Keane et al., 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Matzen & Edmonds, 2007; Puentedura, 2013;
Ritzhaupt et al., 2012; Romrell et al., 2014). The literature focused almost entirely on individual
classroom implementation and integration and not on a wider school, district, or system level.
For technology use to take on the transformative role that is possible, it must permeate the edu-
cational system.
Based on the review of literature, it is clear that a significant gap remains. While the
argument for implementing technology in the curriculum and instruction has been established, a
substantial gap in the knowledge base of how technology is implemented and integrated in K–12
teaching and learning remains. How does a school close the TPACK gaps? How does a school
create an institutional belief that technology can transform teaching and learning? What is the
ideal level of technology integration? What is the right amount of support that aids teachers in
reaching the transformation level of the SAMR model or the synergy of TPACK? What kind of
training and development is effective in changing teaching and learning? How do administrators
create the right culture for teachers to experiment with various ways of integrating technology
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 35
beyond the productivity level? Until these types of issues are addressed, technology integration
will remain at a surface level and students will be hard pressed to master the skills required of a
21st-century citizen.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 36
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is
actively implementing and integrating technology in curriculum and instruction. Chapter 1 intro-
duced the topic, including its importance and relevance to 21st-century education. Chapter 2
explored the current body of literature regarding the impact of technology on teaching and
learning. This chapter discusses the design and methodology of a case study at Donald Baxter
High School in southern California in fall 2015.
Beginning in August 2014, a group of 10 doctoral students at the University of Southern
California began to meet as part of a thematic dissertation group facilitated by Clinical Professor
Emeritus Stuart E. Gothold, Ed.D. The group met at least once a month at the Rossier School of
Education to collaborate on development of 10 individual case studies examining the integration
and implementation of technology in a school environment. Over the course of 3 months, the
group collaborated to construct the statement of the problem, articulate the purpose of the study,
and develop four research questions. In the following 3 months, the instruments of the study,
sampling criteria, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application were created. Through-
out the year, the group solidified its methods of a qualitative study, refining its case study
approach to allow for triangulation of multiple sources of data on the multiple aspects of
technology integration in education (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The group collectively
agreed that document review, interview, survey, and observation would be applied in each of the
individualized case studies. Through the use of multiple data sources, the researchers would gain
the most amount of knowledge to produce detailed descriptions and provide possible explana-
tions for the studied phenomena (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 37
While the group went through a period of intense collaboration regarding the methodol-
ogy, relevant literature, conceptual frameworks, research instruments, and sampling criteria, case
studies were conducted individually. Each researcher selected an individual school, carried out
the research, gathered and analyzed the data, compiled the information into findings, and indi-
vidually wrote a dissertation.
Sample and Population
The group collectively developed a list of characteristics in a school to demonstrate
active integration and implementation of technology in the teaching and learning process: (a) a
public, private, or charter school operating in a K–12 system; (b) a technology claim that the
school is actively implementing instructional technology in a significant way; (c) a vision,
mission, school profile, and/or principal’s message that demonstrates that the site embraces
instructional technology; and (d) evidence of achievement.
A purposeful sampling strategy was used to ensure that the school selection criteria
would be met and that the researcher would be able to form productive relationships that would
yield the maximum amount of information from participants (Maxwell, 2013). The characteris-
tics for school selection identified by the collaborative group were partially agreed on so schools
were representative of other California high schools, allowing the study to be replicated at simi-
lar schools in the future (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Baxter High School, a part of the Thurston Unified School District (pseudonym) met all
of these criteria in the following ways:
1. Baxter is a public school that is part of a K–12 unified school district (California
Department of Education, 2013).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 38
2. Baxter claims to implement instructional technology actively across all grade levels
and subjects (Thurston Unified School District, 2013b).
3. Baxter and the Thurston Unified School District embrace instructional technology
through a comprehensive and fully funded technology plan. The integration of technology is part
of the district’s goals and priorities and the school’s mission statement (Thurston Unified School
District, 2013a, 2014).
4. Baxter is a California Distinguished School, demonstrating that it is closing the
achievement gap. It was recognized as a California Gold Ribbon School in 2015 for its innova-
tive practices. Baxter has been included in the U.S. News and World Report (2015) list of top
high schools for several years. It has continuously met the graduation rate for each of its signifi-
cant subgroups. The percentage of graduates meeting the A-G eligibility criteria exceeds the state
and district levels (California Department of Education, 2014).
Research Design
Conceptual Framework
Because of the various aspects of integrating and implementing technology in a K–12
setting, two conceptual models were used to focus on teaching and learning as two separate
aspects of the educational system. Teaching is displayed as the actions of the teacher, including
the pedagogy needed to deliver curriculum and instruction. Learning is evidenced by the actions
of the students to apply the curriculum and instruction (Ambrose et al., 2010).
The first model focused on the teaching aspect of this study. Examining the impact of
technology integration on teaching through the lens of TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
enabled the researcher to acquire a thorough understanding of the knowledge and skills needed
by the teacher to integrate and implement technology at a K–12 school. The model brings
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 39
together the concepts of TPACK as the core components needed to deliver curriculum and
instruction aided by technology. Each of these knowledge areas exists independently; when
brought together, as displayed by the model in Figure 1, they overlap to create three additional
compound levels of knowledge that a teacher must understand and apply in instructional
practices. The most powerful aspect of the model exists in the center of the overlap as TPACK. It
is here that the teacher is able to bridge the interrelated knowledge and deliver lessons that inte-
grate all aspects into the curriculum and instruction (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

Figure 1: Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPACK) conceptual framework. From What Is
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? by M. Koehler & P. Mishra, 2009, retrieved
from http://www.citjournal.org/vol9/
iss1/general/article1.cfm
The second model focused on the learning aspect of this study. Using Puentedura’s
(2013) SAMR model allowed the researcher to delve into the level of integration and implemen-
tation of technology at a K–12 school as it relates to student learning. As stated in Chapter 2,
little is known about the actual impact of technology and whether there is change in how teachers
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 40
teach and students learn. The SAMR model identifies the type of change and the extent to which
change has occurred. The acronym SAMR identifies four levels of change: substitution, aug-
mentation, modification, and redefinition. The model further identifies the levels of change,
breaking the model in half. Substitution and augmentation are enhancements to the teaching and
learning process; technology integration that reaches the modification and redefinition stages is
transformational to the teaching and learning process.
It is at this stage where the learner is able to reach the higher levels of Krathwohl’s
(2006) revised Bloom’s taxonomy of analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The learner is also able
to demonstrate the ability to communicate, collaborate, think critically, and be creative as a 21st-
century learner (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). Figure 2 illustrates Puentedura’s
model.

Figure 2. Substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) conceptual framework.
From SAMR: Moving From Enhancement to Transformation, by R. Puentedura, 2013, retrieved
from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/
archives/000095.html
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 41
Using these conceptual frameworks, the researcher delimited the focus of the study,
including the design of its instruments, protocols, and analysis, when identifying how technology
has changed the teaching and learning at Baxter High School. Information outside of the purview
of these models does not align with the research questions or the purpose of the study and thus
should be considered in another research study.
Research Questions
Over the course of three meetings, the collaborative group determined that the following
questions would allow the researchers to determine the dynamics necessary in a K–12 school that
is actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction.
1. How do educators at Baxter High School integrate technology to support students’
learning?
2. To what factors do educators at Baxter High School attribute their knowledge of
instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at Baxter High School provided support for technology
integration and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at Baxter
High School?
Instrumentation
The thematic dissertation group created four instruments to facilitate data collection to
address the research questions. Using multiple sources of data, the researcher can create a thick
and rich description of the emic and etic perspectives that can be triangulated (Gall et al., 2003;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). An analysis of the relevant documents enabled the researcher to
gain information that would assist in addressing the research questions through official
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 42
communications and papers (Merriam, 2009). Those documents included the district’s technol-
ogy plan, LCAP, the school’s mission statement, SARC, WASC self-study, staffing allocations,
funding sources, student achievement data, and program offerings. The document review instru-
ment is contained in Appendix A.
The educational staff survey instrument was created to ensure maximum participation by
teachers, administrators, and support staff. Like the document review, survey questions were
created to address the four research questions. Participants answered 22 questions using a 4-point
Likert-type scale, measuring their thoughts on student learning, technology skills, technology
support, and technology beliefs. Survey responses were coded to identify overall patterns in the
participants’ perspectives and practices (Maxwell, 2013). The survey instrument is contained in
Appendix B.
An interview protocol was developed to gain further input on the dynamics of a K–12
school that is actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction.
Using the methods that were taught during both inquiry courses of the doctoral program, the
collaborative group formed 22 open-ended questions for teachers, administrators, and support
staff to provide information to address the four research questions. Questions included in the
interview were checked for a common structure and terminology, as well as carefully aligned to
the research questions to ensure that the information would allow the researcher to make con-
nections between the respondents’ answers and the other sources of data collection (Creswell,
2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Some of the thematic dissertation group members piloted
the questions with staff members at their school sites to determine whether the interview was
structured to elicit maximum feedback. After sharing feedback from the experience, the group
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 43
revised the wording, structure, and order of several questions. The interview instrument is con-
tained in Appendix C.
The observation protocol was designed to allow for maximum efficiency in collection of
information. Team members reviewed a protocol developed by one of the members as part of the
pilot study conducted in an inquiry course that looked at the classroom from the perspectives of
the evidence of technology and its enhancement or transformation of instruction. Elements that
were observed included room environment, instructional strategy, student engagement, level of
rigor, student grouping, and curriculum resources. There was also an area designed to record
demographic information of the class, teacher behavior, and student behavior.
The protocol allowed the researchers to take notes quickly while creating a structure that
could be coded and analyzed easily (Merriam, 2009). The observations were also coded so that
they could be linked to the interviews during the analysis phase. This allowed the researcher to
crosscheck the participants’ perspectives on how they viewed technology and whether that view
matched actual practices (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The observation instrument is con-
tained in Appendix D.
Table 1 reflects the relationship between each of the instruments and the research ques-
tions. This confirms the researcher’s ability to gather information that creates a vivid description
of the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating and implementing technology in
curriculum and instruction and then to triangulate that description across multiple sources (Max-
well, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Validity and Reliability
From the onset of this research, the issues of validity and reliability were considered and
adhered to in the research design and implementation. Because this case study focused on a
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 44
Table 1
Research Design and Instrumentation Alignment

Research question Data needs Instrumentation

How do educators at Baxter
High School integrate tech-
nology to support students
learning?

Type of technology available
to teachers and students
Opportunities for teachers and
students to use technology
Curriculum and instructional
strategies
Professional development
activities
Document review
Observations
Surveys
Interviews
To what factors do educators
at Baxter High School attrib-
ute their knowledge of in-
structional technology skills
and pedagogy to utilize tech-
nology as instructional tool?
Professional development
activities
Coaching and support
Collaboration activities
Surveys
Interviews
In what ways are educators at
Baxter High School provided
support for technology inte-
gration and implementation?

Professional development
activities
Coaching and support
Hardware and software sup-
port
Financial allocations
Staffing allocations
Collaboration activities
Document review
Observations
Surveys
Interviews
What are educators’ beliefs
about technology integration
and implementation at Baxter
High School?

School mission, vision, and
goals
Instructional practices
Document review
Observations
Surveys
Interviews

single school, findings from this research alone are not generalizable (Creswell, 2014; Gall et al.,
2003; Merriam, 2009). If the data gathered from the collective group, as well as the thematic
group that looked at very similar components of technology integration the prior year, were
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 45
combined, the researchers could possibly triangulate the multiple sources of data to contribute
additional information to the literature and confirm emerging findings (Merriam, 2009).
To ensure trustworthiness and credibility, the researcher applied elements of counting and
triangulation. By counting the number of times a topic emerged, the researcher determine
whether there were enough occurrences to establish a pattern. After assessing the number of
occurrences, the researcher determined whether the findings were significant (Maxwell, 2013).
The counting also assisted in protecting against bias because the numbers were there to support
conclusions (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Interviewing seven separate participants
enabled the researcher to triangulate the data and crosscheck whether participants’ responses
were valid examples rather than isolated to one person’s perspective (Merriam, 2009). Trust-
worthiness was further confirmed when conducting observations in multiple classrooms and wit-
nessing examples of what was shared by the interviewees (Merriam, 2009).
To protect the integrity of the study and ensure that it was carried out in an ethical
manner, several precautions were taken in selection, method, and analysis (Merriam, 2009). The
researcher chose a school where there was no prior affiliation. Before reviewing the formation on
the California Department of Education website related to the selection criteria, the researcher
knew only of the school’s location in Orange County. There was no expectation in terms of the
kind of technology or the type of instruction to be observed. When completing observations, the
researcher followed the observation protocol and focused on instructional strategies involving
technology. Before conducting interviews, the researcher was explicit with the participants that
the study was non-evaluative and that its purpose was for completion of a dissertation study. The
researcher also explained that pseudonyms would be used in the dissertation for the district,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 46
school, and participants to provide protection to the school and the participants’ identities (Mer-
riam, 2009).
Data Collection
The researcher followed the methods and protocols described above with fidelity. Begin-
ning with the review of documents in winter 2015, the researcher examined the district and
school websites to determine the capacity for technology integration. Upon analysis of the reoc-
curring topics and themes, the researcher investigated additional documents that shed light on the
dynamics at this K–12 school, confirming that it was actively integrating and implementing
technology in curriculum and instruction.
Based on discussion with the dissertation committee chair about the school’s characteris-
tics, it was determined the site would be worthy of study. The researcher met briefly with site
administrators to discuss the terms of the case study and to answer initial questions about its
purpose and methods. Following the discussion, an assistant principal was designated to be the
researcher’s contact and assisted in gaining approval from the district administration. Upon
sharing the approved IRB application, approval was given to the researcher to conduct the study
in fall 2015. The researcher gained access to the campus for a brief tour of facilities and to meet
members of the faculty and staff before the end of the school year.
Shortly after the start of the 2015 school year, the researcher spent 6 full days on Baxter’s
campus, observing professional development workshops, collaboration meetings, and classroom
instruction following the observation protocol (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Before each classroom observation, a very brief conversational interview allowed the participant
and the researcher to establish rapport and for the participant to ask questions about the purpose
of the study. The researcher worked with site administrators to share a brief description of the
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 47
study and to solicit participation in the observation and interview processes. The researcher
interviewed eight members of the Thurston and Baxter staff, including teachers, administrators,
and support staff, regarding the school’s integration and implementation of technology in the
curriculum and instruction. Using a cyclical approach to interview and observation helped the
researcher to focus the gathering of data and identification of areas that needed additional infor-
mation or clarification (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Surveys were distributed by email to
the entire faculty, using the anonyms feature in Google Forms
®
to protect confidentiality and to
make the process as easy as possible for both participants and researcher.
Data Analysis
When analyzing the data from the documents, surveys, observations, and interviews, the
researcher used the constant-comparative method of qualitative analysis techniques that allowed
for classification and conceptualization of the data (Lichtman, 2014.) Similarities and differences
were identified that allowed the researcher to recognize patterns and establish relationships in the
information (Merriam, 2009). This was accomplished through open, axial, and selective coding.
By starting without predetermined categories and moving to identification and conceptualizing,
the researcher found relationships that assisted in addressing the research questions (Lichtman,
2014; Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014).
At the conclusion of the document review, surveys, observations and interviews, the
researcher reviewed each of the instruments and made a tally mark each time there was a similar
occurrence. The researcher checked for connections between occurrences. In the interviews, the
researcher identified three categories of responses: support for technology integration, teacher
skills at integrating technology, and teachers’ beliefs about technology integration. Support was
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 48
further disaggregated to include professional development, coaching, and technical support. The
researcher applied the same categories when coding observations.
To facilitate analysis, the researcher created a matrix using Microsoft
®
Excel
®
with the
six categories on the rows and the type of occurrence on the columns. The categories were also
color coded to facilitate completing the spreadsheet. The researcher populated each cell with a
brief example of the category that corresponded to the appropriate interview or observation
occurrence. The color coding was also used to analyze the observations. This spreadsheet
assisted with triangulation of multiple sources of data (Gall et al., 2003; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009).
Information from the spreadsheet was categorized into the four SAMR categories of sub-
stitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (Puentedura, 2013) and the four realms of
TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). These categories enabled a closer analysis of the data to
identify the level of integration and implementation of technology at Baxter High School. Exam-
ples of the specific supports, beliefs, and strategies were then identified. Drawing from Bolman
and Deal’s (2008) four frames, the researcher examined the data to analyze the dynamics of
technology integration and implementation at an organizational level.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 49
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
This chapter reports the findings from the case study of Baxter High School, a school that
has integrated technology in its classrooms through a focused implementation providing support
for teachers and students in the teaching and learning process. This chapter includes data gath-
ered via review of key documents, observations in several classrooms, interviews with staff
members, and surveys of the educational staff. Summaries of these data, along with answers to
the research questions, identification of emergent themes, and discussion of alignment to the
conceptual frameworks, constitute the majority of this chapter.
In order to determine the dynamics that exist at a school actively integrating technology
in the teaching and learning process, four research questions guided the study:
1. How do educators at Baxter High School integrate technology to support students’
learning?
2. To what factors do educators at Baxter High School attribute their knowledge of
instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at Baxter High School provided support for technology
integration and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at Baxter
High School?
Methodology
Following a qualitative case study design, the researcher gathered data from a review of
relevant documents, classroom observations, educator interviews, and surveys of the teaching
staff. Data from the four instruments allowed the researcher to triangulate the findings over mul-
tiple sources to ensure that the data were reliable and valid in the case study setting (Creswell,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 50
2014; Merriam, 2009). The researcher examined important documents such as Thurston’s tech-
nology plan, LCAP, Measure S Bond Proposal and follow-up reports, Acceptable Use of Tech-
nology Agreement, Baxter’s WASC Accreditation Self-Study, the SARC, and the mission
statements, goals, websites, budgets, and staffing allocations for the district and school site.
Reviewing these documents enabled the researcher to understand the district and school’s
programs prior to interacting with the site.
Classroom observations were conducted using the observation protocol developed by the
thematic dissertation group. The researcher observed classes in each of the four core disciplines,
including various grade levels and ability groupings. Courses visited included American Gov-
ernment, Algebra 2, Biology, English 9, English 11, and U.S. History. Observations focused on
effective instructional practices, student engagement, classroom environment, student activities,
and levels of rigorous instruction. The researcher paid close attention to the presence of technol-
ogy in each of these areas and whether the instructional practice was enhanced or transformed.
The researcher also noted how teachers and students were using technology during lessons.
Five teachers, one digital literacy coach, and two administrators were interviewed. Each
interview was conducted at a time convenient to the participant and was voluntary. Using the
protocol developed by the thematic dissertation group, interviews were recorded and later
transcribed to ensure accurate documentation for the coding and analysis process. The researcher
also wrote comments during the interviews that included notes for possible follow-up. Teacher
participants were selected for their varied use of technology in the classroom. The support staff
member was selected for her role as Baxter’s digital literacy coach and because her position was
referenced by so many other participants as a major role in implementation. The assistant
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 51
principal was selected for his role in overseeing curriculum, and the assistant superintendent was
selected because she supervises technology implementation in Thurston Unified.
Surveys were distributed via email to all members of Baxter’s teaching staff. Sixty-six
percent of the faculty completed the anonymous form over the course of 10 days. The survey
was developed collaboratively by the thematic dissertation group, focusing on four areas: student
learning, technology skills, technology support, and teachers’ beliefs. The survey followed a
four-part Likert-type scale using the options of rarely or never, sometimes, most of the time, and
almost always for questions regarding student learning, technology skills, and technology
support. For the area of teachers’ beliefs, the options of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and
strongly agree were used. The survey data allowed the researcher to understand the implementa-
tion of technology at Baxter High School and provided an additional data point for triangulation
when analyzing the various sources of information (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). Responses to each item were totaled by number and percentage; this information is avail-
able in Appendix E.
The data collection process took place from May 2015 through December 2015, with
interviews, surveys, and observations from October to December 2015. All data coding initially
focused on alignment to the study’s research questions but was then further broken down to con-
sider the conceptual frameworks of SAMR and TPACK. As explained in Chapter 3, SAMR is a
framework for analyzing the role of technology in the instructional process (Puentedura, 2013)
and TPACK is a framework for examining how technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge come together to frame the teaching process (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). A final layer
of coding using Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames was applied to understand the dynamics
present in an organization that is actively integrating technology in the teaching and learning
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 52
process. Using each of the four instruments, the researcher identified themes and triangulated the
findings, ensuring that a thick and rich description of the themes emerged (Creswell, 2014;
Maxwell, 2013).
Participants in the Study
Based on email and telephone conversations with the assistant principal in spring 2015,
the researcher visited Thurston Unified School District and Baxter High School for 6 days to
conduct observations, interviews, and follow-ups on surveys in fall 2015. Five participants were
interviewed and observed, three were interviewed, one was observed, and 69 completed the
survey. According to Baxter’s SARC (Thurston Unified School District, 2015), all of the site’s
teachers are fully credentialed and rated as highly qualified. Based on survey responses, the
majority of teachers at Baxter have been teaching 6 to 15 years, with the next largest group
teaching 16 to 25 years. Certificated Staff Reports from the California Department of Education
(2015d) verified that the teaching staff’s average years of service was 13. Administrators
included in the study had been in their current positions for 3 or more years and had served as
teachers and administrators in nearby districts prior to joining Thurston’s management team.
Initial Visit to Baxter High School
Located in an affluent master-planned community, Baxter High School is surrounded by
homes, condominiums, and upscale apartments. It is easily accessible by two major freeways and
is within walking distance of a large retail development. Built in 2004, the school has established
a reputation for its support of the four A’s: academics, activities, athletics, and arts. It was
recently recognized by the California Department of Education for its Exemplary arts program
(California Department of Education, 2015b) that includes digital components in two of its art-
related pathways (Thurston Unified School District, 2015). Walking onto the campus, the
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 53
researcher immediately noticed a banner recognizing Baxter as a Microsoft Showcase School
because of the site’s commitment to a learning environment in which innovative teaching and
learning practices are enabled by technology (Microsoft, 2015).
Upon entering the school’s foyer, the researcher was cheerfully greeted by the reception-
ist and issued credentials that would allow access to the main campus. The researcher immedi-
ately noticed the trophies, plaques, and banners displaying Baxter’s many achievements. Upon
turning the corner to meet with the assistant principal who would be the point of contact for this
study, the researcher noted a professional poster highlighting a Baxter graduate who had partici-
pated in the graphic design pathway, prominently displayed on the wall. Assistant Principal
Barnett answered initial questions and then took the researcher on a tour of the campus,
including the newly completed science and technology wing that had been added through
Measure S funding.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do educators at Baxter High School integrate technol-
ogy to support students’ learning?” Thurston Unified School District’s Technology Plan for
implementation outlines the goals for integrating technology. Using the National Education
Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) recommendations as a guide for trans-
forming the teaching and learning process using technology, Thurston set goals for learning,
assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity in the core content areas (Thurston Unified
School District, 2013a). Baxter High School educators integrate technology in nearly every
aspect of their instruction and communication with students and parents. The extent and fre-
quency of this integration varies in the teaching staff, but the district and school have initiated
several protocols to ensure that, at minimum, teachers use the student information system Aeries,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 54
the learning management system Haiku, and the assessment system Illuminate. Teachers are also
provided with a computer, LCD projector, audio amplification system, document camera, Apple
television, Chromecast, and wi-fi Internet access. Some also have IPads that facilitate movement
throughout the classroom. Software licenses are purchased with site and department funds as
requested by teachers. In addition, many use free online tools such as Padlet, GoFormative,
Verso, ThingLink, Peardeck, and Doctopus to check for understanding, provide interventions,
and assess students’ level of learning. Teachers also support specific subjects or courses using
websites such as Desmos, GetAFive, and ISideWith. All students have either a school-issued
laptop or a personal device that meets the specifications listed in Thurston’s technology plan
(Thurston Unified School District, 2015) that they use to access Haiku, Google accounts, and the
web tools used by the teaching staff to support the instructional process.
Through observations, interviews, and surveys, the researcher learned that the educators
use technology extensively in their classrooms, with 78% of the survey respondents stating that
their instruction involves technology most of the time or almost always. Sixty-three percent of
the teachers reported that they embed student use of technology most of the time or almost
always in their classrooms. This was supported by the classroom observations, in which 100% of
the teachers were using technology and five of the six lessons observed focused almost entirely
on the students’ use of technology rather than just the teacher’s use of technology. In the one
classroom observed where students’ use of technology was minimal, there was evidence on the
walls and in other lesson plans for the week that students use technology tools in that classroom
as well. The technological knowledge and the technological-pedagogical knowledge of the
teachers manifested itself in a variety of lesson designs that aimed to keep students actively
engaged and provide collaborative learning opportunities aligned to the 21st-century skills
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 55
(Education Technology Task Force, 2014; Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2014; Keane
et al., 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Lazakidou & Retailis, 2012; Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, 2011; Zucker & Light, 2009). The researcher observed Mr. O’Connor’s utilization of
Haiku for these purposes in a discussion on the significance of Gettysburg and Antietam. During
the interview he emphatically explained,
The Haiku functionalities are indispensable. There are instructional parts to it, there’s
also collaborative parts like wikis and discussion boards. But just having a hub that I
know everyday students can go to for extra resources, extra links, extra articles . . . . I can
be a conduit for their learning even when they’re not in the classroom. Technology brings
everything together.
All of the lessons that were observed employed technology at the augmentation level of
the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2013) at the very least; however, four of the six teachers pushed
on to provide strategies that transformed the learning at the modification and redefinition levels.
Mr. O’Connor’s activity on Thinglink to articulate turning points of the Civil War, Ms. Todd’s
use of Peardeck to discuss argumentative writing, Mr. Malloy’s utilization of Today’s Meet to
practice inferences, and Ms. Swem’s strategy with Peardeck to get students to display their
understanding of graphing inequalities all displayed characteristics of lessons that would not
have been imaginable if not for the use of technology to facilitate the demonstration of the four
Cs in the students’ performance tasks (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011; Puentedura,
2013; Romrell et al., 2014).
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “To what factors do educators at Baxter High School attrib-
ute their knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 56
instructional tool?” The results pointed to three significant factors: a supportive culture, profes-
sional development opportunities, and collaboration with their colleagues. Survey results, docu-
ment review, and interview transcripts supported these areas as being imperative to Baxter’s use
of technology and teachers’ development of their technological and pedagogical knowledge.
A Supportive Culture
One of the most prominent findings explaining the source of Baxter’s utilization of tech-
nology lies in the supportive culture within the school and the district. One hundred percent of
those completing the survey supported the statement that technology use was encouraged and
promoted at the school. All teachers agreed in interviews that they were supported by the district
and school administration to take risks, try new strategies, and develop their skills at their own
pace. Mr. Dodds and Mr. O’Connor both spoke about the summer technology institute that
offered not only numerous topics but also various levels. Professional learning opportunities that
differentiated to meet the needs of participants is part of the implementation strategies in
Thurston’s Technology Plan. Both commented that this format showed them that the district
valued their time and respected them as professionals. They, along with Assistant Principal
Barnett, commented on Thurston and Baxter’s supportive culture:
The district has made the budgetary commitment to fund a full-time digital literacy
coach. Baxter could never cover that with our site budget. Her being here every day, it’s
huge for us! (Mr. Barnett)
They [the district administration] are in our classroom, observing, taking care of any
issues that come up. They have spent the money wisely, purposefully. They want the
technology in our hands. (Mr. O’Connor)
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 57
Mr. Malloy and Mr. Dodds spoke about how the immediate technical assistance played a part in
the campus’ overall supportive culture as well:
The student Tech Team is just phenomenal. It’s kind of like the Genius Bar at Apple. If
students have a problem, we can send them during tutorial and other students take care of
it. We don’t miss a beat. (Mr. Malloy)
We have IT support right here on campus. When a virus hit at 7:15, someone was work-
ing on it at 7:30, stopping it from spreading. It took all day to scrub but it was contained
because we didn’t have to wait for a Helpdesk person to get back to us. It’s just really
convenient and assuring to have that kind of support right here on campus. (Mr. Dodds)
Survey results verified this, with 63 of 69 participants stating they almost always can get tech-
nical assistance when they need it.
Professional Development Opportunities
With a digital learning coach assigned to the site, teachers at Baxter participate in
monthly professional development workshops known as “JOTs” (Just One Thing). Based on
teacher requests, classroom walk-throughs, and her own professional learning, the digital coach,
Ms. Fleming, facilitates two after-school trainings each month that center on one strategy,
program, or tool that participants can take back to the classroom and use immediately. Various
teachers who were interviewed commented that these JOT sessions were helpful because they
were focused, hands-on, and short. Each said that it was something that they could easily bring
into lesson plans. If they needed additional help or had questions, Ms. Fleming was accessible,
but so were colleagues who had participated in the session.
Thurston dedicated last summer’s institute to technology. This allowed teachers to self-
select their learning opportunities based on interest and need prior to starting the school year. Mr.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 58
Dodds said that he appreciated this opportunity because he could practice and explore the new
tools prior to starting the year. Mr. O’Connor appreciated the opportunity because it reinforced
Thurston’s commitment to him as a professional. Thus, demonstrating that the district recognized
the learning process did not stop just because a teacher had been trained once on something a
few years ago. Thurston’s Technology Plan (Thurston Unified School District, 2013b) explains
that professional development should spiral so the staff has multiple opportunities to learn how
to integrate technology tools.
Collaboration With Colleagues
Baxter’s supportive culture extends to the collaborative nature of the school’s organiza-
tional structure. Departments meet together and in course-alike groups to share what they are
doing in their classrooms. Ms. Swem, Mr. O’Connor, and Mr. Dodds all reported that their
department shares strategies and lesson plans on a regular basis as part of the Best Practices
segment of department professional learning community time. Collaboration includes visiting
team members’ classrooms where a that use particular form of technology is used in a lesson so
others can observe how it works and how it benefits the teaching and learning process. Tools
such as Google Drive, PearDeck, and GoFormative allow them to share assessments, lessons,
rubrics, samples, and projects with all team members so everyone benefits. During one class-
room observation, a student expressed enjoyment of the lesson. The teacher quickly gave credit
to his colleague and the work that teachers had put into developing the lesson.
Another example of collaboration by Baxter staff is the use of “playdates.” The digital
learning coach, Ms. Fleming, explained that these helped her to get technology into the class-
rooms. Teachers can sign up to “play” with her and the featured technology tool. Everyone who
comes to a playdate can test new tools, work at their own pace, and stay as long as they want.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 59
She follows up with an email or a personal visit to see how the teacher is using the tool in the
classroom. The playdates are also used to build interest for future JOT sessions or provide
follow-up to those who want more time with the tool and the coach. Both Mr. Malloy and Ms.
Swem noted that they had had the opportunity to present at one of the playdates, providing addi-
tional development for them as professionals and leaders on campus. This information gained in
the interview process mirrors the data gleaned from the survey responses, in which 89% of the
teachers responded that they received hands-on opportunities to learn instructional technology.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “In what ways are educators at Baxter High School provided
support for technology integration and implementation?” The data showed that an environment
that champions the use of technology in the teaching and learning process is key to integrating
technology. Data from interviews, documents, and surveys, the researcher verified that there is
substantial assistance in integrating and implementing technology at Baxter High School and in
the Thurston School District.
The comprehensive Technology Plan is aligned to current literature about technology
integration, as well as how technology can reinforce 21st-century skills, learning and innovation
skills, information and media skills, and life and career skills (Thurston Unified School District,
2013b). One of the most extensive sections of the plan centers on how to support teachers’ inte-
gration of technology. Creating a Technology Task Force to identify and support professional
development needs at each school allows the district to examine implementation at each school
and determine whether additional support is unique to one or two schools or is instead a
districtwide need. The funding of digital learning coaches who support individual school sites
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 60
and who comprise a districtwide network of support facilitate professional learning in large
group, small group, and individual formats.
The teachers at Baxter elaborated on the importance of the digital learning coach in sup-
porting their integration of technology in the teaching and learning process:
The resources the DLCs [digital learning coaches] put together are great. They are always
sharing new tools. Then there is their YouTube channel that I can go to when I want to
try something new or I forget how to use a particular feature. (Ms. Malloy)
Having Ms. Fleming [digital learning coach] have time at every staff meeting this year to
show us a new tool . . . . it is short and sweet, and I can decide if it is something I want to
learn more about. (Ms. Swem)
Ms. Todd also shared that Ms. Fleming’s facilitation of the “speed geeking” experience at
faculty meetings reinforced the belief that all Baxter teachers are experimenting with at least one
technology tool in their classroom. In a speed geeking session, teachers pair for a minute to
discuss one technology tool that they have tried recently. After partners share, they rotate and the
process repeats three or four times. Teachers come away with new ideas and a collaborative
resource when they try out the tool.
Administrators also emphasized the role of the digital learning coach as a support mecha-
nism for furthering teachers’ development in the merging of their technological and pedagogical
knowledge:
The digital learning coaches are huge for us. Through the fellows program they are
responsible for we have been able to reach about 400 of the district’s teachers with indi-
vidual training and support. That is half our staff. . . . We are pretty much at a tipping
point at the end of this year. (Ms. Rager)
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 61
The in-depth coaching that Ms. Fleming provides follows the full coaching model, giving
continuous structured support to our teachers. She maximizes her calendar with coaching,
workshops, and follow-up. Teachers that work with her trust her. (Mr. Barnett)
Survey responses verified that the staff is provided hands-on opportunities to learn
instructional technology (89%) and that a mentor is available to support their technology inte-
gration (96%).
The Technology Fellows initiative is another example of support that Thurston and
Baxter provide to teachers, as confirmed by a review of documents and interviews. Teachers who
are interested in committing to participating in a series of intensive professional development
and coaching sessions, after which they serve as an additional resource to colleagues, can apply
to become a Technology Fellow. Fellows meet weekly with the digital learning coach during
their preparation period to discuss technology integration, learn about new tools, reflect on
implementation, and plan for future learning. Initially, the program was meant to be a 1-year
commitment, but many fellows wanted to continue. These 2nd-year fellows continue to meet
with Ms. Fleming, but not as frequently as 1st-year fellows do. Three of the teachers who were
interviewed were 1st- or 2nd-year fellows and reported their experience to be invaluable:
I think the learning curve for a fellow, is so much quicker than someone who does not
take that on. You’re exposed to so many more resources, and you have someone to talk
through your lessons with. We share ideas about how technology can advance the les-
son’s objectives. When she comes to observe and then we talk about it after . . . it has
really led to my complete integration. (Ms. Todd)
There is a lot of technology I don’t know how to use . . . but I will dive in. Being a fellow
this year is great. Ms. Fleming is accessible and answers my questions. She brings me
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 62
things to try out . . . . Once I figure it out, I can show others how to use it. (Mr.
O’Connor)
The Technology Fellows program appears to be an enhancement to the site-based Digital
Learning Experts that Thurston’s Technology Plan refers to in the professional development
section’s implementation plan and is continuing to support the integration of technology when
teaching content standards and 21st-learning skills.
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration
and implementation at Baxter High School?” Findings for this question supported the notion that
teachers’ beliefs play a major role in the integration and implementation of technology in the
teaching and learning process, as shown in surveys and interviews. Ninety-nine percent of those
responding to the survey agreed that they support the use of technology in the classroom and 66
of 69 respondents agreed that instructional technology has a positive impact on student learning
and that their classroom is designed to be student centered.
During the course of interviews, many participants said that an important factor in inte-
grating technology was related to their willingness to take risks and approach their lesson plans
with a fresh perspective. Ms. Swem and Mr. Malloy shared that they have had their share of
technology “blunders” but stated that those had not stopped them from integrating technology
into their lessons. Ms. Todd shared that she had transformed her instructional practices because
she is open to failure. “The first time I’ve tried some things, I have thought, ‘That was okay, but
it could have gone a little differently,’ so you keep trying and refining your practices. That’s how
you get better.”
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 63
Having a growth mindset that recognizes that successful integration comes from com-
mitment and practice is critical to implementation. Mr. O’Connor shared that he tries to approach
technology integration with an open mind, much as he would ask of his students.
All of the educators interviewed spoke of their belief that technology has increased their
efficiency. They use less paper, gain instructional minutes, and post assignments for absent
students on Haiku. However, they also stated that the productivity that integration has brought to
their teaching strategies has made its way into the learning process. For example, Mr. Dodds,
Ms. Swem, and Mr. Malloy stated that the feedback loop with their students is more dynamic
because of technology. While technology provides immediate feedback for students, it also
allows teachers to focus their instruction on areas that need review or clarification to ensure that
students understand key concepts. Many of the educators shared that technology integration has
expanded the type of feedback that a student receives about progress. Ms. Swem and Mr.
O’Connor shared examples of how collaborative technologies such as Google Docs, Padlet, or
Verso facilitate collaborative learning experiences for students:
With Google Docs I can give immediate feedback, throughout the writing process. I can
basically have a conversation with the student as they’re writing. For my freshman
students who are adjusting to the expectations for writing genres, it can save them from
heading down the wrong path. . . . In the past, I wouldn’t see the essay until it was
finished. . . . They would have to rewrite it and I would have to regrade it. (Ms. Swem)
Verso has been beneficial because the postings are anonymous. When students had to
choose the arguments they thought were the most conclusive, they didn’t know who con-
tributed what so they weren’t gravitating towards picking the “top” students’ responses.
In other formats, so often they miss some phenomenal stuff out there, because they saw
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 64
the person and didn’t really know them to be a top writer. . . . Here, what’s written is all
that counts. (Mr. O’Connor)
Emergent Themes
In review of documents, classroom observations notes, educator interview transcripts,
and teaching staff survey responses, common topics that occurred in more than one protocol
were color coded. Initial topics included access, beliefs, benefits, funding, pedagogy, policies,
support, and training. Using Creswell’s (2014) method of triangulation to analyze the data, the
numbers of areas that occurred in more than one piece of evidence and across more than one
protocol were tallied. Three themes emerged from the data:
1. Support for teachers, in the form of professional development, coaching, and technical
assistance in the integration and implementation of technology, plays a vital role in the degree to
which the technology transforms the instructional practices and merges the technological, peda-
gogical, and content knowledge of teachers.
2. A teacher’s own technological skills are paramount in willingness to invest time,
explore new resources, and take risks in the integration of technology in the classroom.
3. A teacher’s beliefs about the role of technology help to lay a foundation for empower-
ing students in the learning process in a technology-enabled classroom.
Each of these emergent themes defines the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively
integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction while demonstrating aca-
demic achievement in a variety of accountability measures at the local, state, and national levels.
Emergent Themes and the Four Frames of Leadership
Organizations that transform their practices do so because of effective leadership exer-
cised at both the management and employee levels. Neither Thurston nor Baxter would have
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 65
been able to create the environment that supports change without leadership by its administrators
and teachers. Any organization that is looking to replicate their implementation should consider
its leadership paradigm. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of leadership provides a model
of analysis to determine which type of leadership characteristics was used through four separate
lenses: human resource, political, structural, and symbolic. As themes discussed in this chapter
emerged, the researcher discovered numerous ways that Thurston and Baxter approached various
stages of technology integration and implementation in the teaching and learning process by
providing organizational leadership. Even though each of the themes and practices could be
scrutinized through multiple leadership frames, the following discussion focus3w on the prac-
tices that contributed most to the emergent themes at Baxter High School.
The Structural Frame and Emergent Theme 1
Emergent Theme 1 was that support for teachers, in the form of professional develop-
ment, coaching, and technical assistance in the integration and implementation of technology,
plays a vital role in the degree to which the technology transforms the instructional practices and
merges the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of teachers.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame establishes that the purpose of any organiza-
tion is to achieve its designated goals and that, by implementing logical and efficient systems,
this is possible. The structural frame is particularly important to Baxter’s technology integration
because it is within the systems put in place by Thurston and Baxter that teachers receive support
that enables them to experience alignment of TPACK.
Beginning with the design of the district’s technology plan, resources such as budget,
infrastructure, and support staff are clearly allocated. Accountability for how and when imple-
mentation would be measured provided a roadmap for Baxter’s integration of technology. The
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 66
appropriate people were hired with specific purposes to meet the needs of teachers as they
implement transformative technology strategies in their classrooms. Policies and procedures that
supported implementation, such as acceptable use policies, hardware/software adoption, and
technical assistance, were developed to keep systems moving forward and to ensure that technol-
ogy was implemented in the teaching and learning processes. These practices align with the liter-
ature reviewed in Chapter 2 regarding examples of successful technology integration.
The Human Resource Frame and Emergent Theme 2
Emergent Theme 2 was that a teacher’s own technological skills are paramount in will-
ingness to invest time, explore new resources, and take risks in the integration of technology in
the classroom. The human resource frame stresses the importance of relationships in organiza-
tions (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Understanding the importance of relationships and valuing the
knowledge, skills, and efforts of an organization’s human capital make it possible for the organi-
zation to strengthen and focus its energies on accomplishing its goals. Knowing whom to select
for each position and how to support that person’s development also solidifies the direction of
the organization.
Central to developing the teaching staff’s technological skills is development of a sup-
portive environment. A culture of trust and collaboration can happen only when strong relation-
ships are fostered through positive interactions. Ensuring that all educators participate in ongoing
professional development and can advance their professional learning by serving as Technology
Fellows or presenting at the Technology Extravaganza demonstrates that Thurston and Baxter
believe in investing in employees. Decisions regarding budget and staffing that reinforce these
practices are additional examples of leadership that is crucial to developing a culture of learners.
Ms. Fleming characterized the importance of building relationships during her interview:
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 67
Good teaching is about relationships, we know this about our students. . . . Baxter has
come a long way because of the opportunities for one on one support from a fellow
teacher who is not their evaluator and only exists to encourage and support them.
This expands on the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 regarding a teacher’s willingness to try new
strategies and the role of relationships in creating an experimental environment.
The Symbolic Frame and Emergent Theme 3
Emergent Theme 3 was that a teacher’s beliefs about the role of technology help to lay a
foundation for empowering students in the learning process in a technology-enabled classroom.
An organization that is intentional in its philosophy and belief system is very aware of the ritual
and meaning in how the organization conducts itself. The symbolic frame focuses on the behav-
iors and actions of an organization as an expression of its values (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Employees, students, parents, and community members recognize what is important to Thurston
and Baxter in how they communicate and organize. The various levels of leadership at Thurston
and Baxter champion technology use by the teacher and the student.
Teachers commented in interviews that meaningful technology integration is an expecta-
tion from the organization’s leaders. Their presence in classroom walk-throughs and being
accessible via email reiterate to the teachers that the leadership values their efforts and sees
technology integration to be an important part of the instructional core. Rather than technology
being an add-on or a bonus, it has become as integral as the content standards in preparing
students for the worlds of college and career. Teachers reported that the district office is invested
in their success based on these actions. Continuous professional development led by in-district
facilitators verifies that leadership values the talents and abilities of employees. Creating an
advisory group in which all school sites are represented to give feedback regarding technology
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 68
integration also empowers the teaching staff to play a role in determining what Thurston values.
These acts model the beliefs and values that Thurston wants all employees to possess in their
own classroom when they are challenging and empowering their students in a technology-
enabled classroom.
Chapter Summary
The chapter presented data gathered at a California public high school that has integrated
and implemented technology as a tool for transforming the teaching and learning process. Four
research questions guided the study:
1. How do educators at Baxter High School integrate technology to support students’
learning?
2. To what factors do educators at Baxter High School attribute their knowledge of
instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at Baxter High School provided support for technology
integration and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at Baxter
High School?
Data were collected over the course of 6 months, through document review, formal and
informal interviews with educators, surveys of teachers, and classroom observations. Using
open, axial, and relational coding to organize the data (Merriam, 2009), the researcher applied
Creswell’s (2014) six-step process for qualitative data analysis to triangulate and interpret the
data. This method of triangulation enabled the researcher to create a thick and rich description of
the dynamics of a school integrating technology in the teaching and learning process that can be
replicated at other school sites to determine additional strategies for integration.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 69
Baxter High School has created an environment that supports teachers in developing
technology-enabled classrooms where rigorous standards are taught through engaging strategies.
The teachers have been given help at every step in the implementation process. Staff is access-
ible to coach or assist them. The district has committed funding and resources to ensure success-
ful implementation. The collaborative culture at Baxter continues to thrive and expand with
creative forms of interaction. Teachers are purposeful in combining their technological, peda-
gogical, and content knowledge to create lessons that are designed to utilize technology beyond
the substitution level. Students are demonstrating understanding of the content standards and
using technology to strengthen their 21st-century learning skills. With each year of implementa-
tion, Baxter will continue to refine its practices, which will be important as society changes the
way it thinks about how schools use technology.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 70
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Demands on the education system are evolving rapidly. Looking for learning experiences
that will equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global society is
fundamental for the 21st-century educator (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). Designing
lessons that enable students to collaborate with peers, communicate in oral and written forms,
think critically about dilemmas, and create novel solutions is an approach to changing how edu-
cators view teaching and learning to support the needs of the 21st-century learner. In order for
students to engage in this new philosophy of teaching and learning, they need tools so.
Technology-enabled classrooms are redefining the way students learn.
Technology has the unique ability to transform learning through access, inquiry, and per-
sonalization. Providing learners with devices such as laptops or tablets brings greater access to
information and resources for learning. Designing lessons that involve problem solving and
experimentation develops students’ ability to evaluate, apply, or synthesize their learning. Using
various applications and programs, students can receive individualized support and feedback to
understand subject matter and its application. Through a comprehensive analysis of the practices
employed by a school and district that has demonstrated the ability to integrate technology in the
teaching and learning process, other educational institutions can learn from these strategies to
transform the teaching and learning process.
The previous four chapters provided an orientation to the study, an examination of perti-
nent research, a description of the methodology for data collection, and an analysis of the find-
ings from the case study. Through Creswell’s (2014) method of triangulation, three themes
emerged that shaped the researcher’s conclusions and recommendations for future research on
integrating technology in the teaching and learning process.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 71
Purpose, Significance, and Methodology of the Study
The purpose of this study was to pinpoint the dynamics that characterize a school that has
integrated technology in the teaching and learning process. Through a 6-month study, several
elements that are crucial to supporting technology integration emerged. During a time of shifting
expectations in curriculum, instruction, finance, and accountability in California’s public educa-
tion system, identifying a school that has addressed the complexities of these changes effectively
can be useful to other schools. Educational leaders could use the findings from this case study to
determine how to foster an environment that supports the seamless integration of technology in
the teaching and learning process.
This study was one of 10 conducted in 2015 regarding schools in California that integrate
technology in the teaching and learning process. Through the thematic process used by Clinical
Professor Dr. Stuart Gothold, the group shared applicable literature, agreed on conceptual
frameworks for analysis, collectively designed research instruments, and discussed the meth-
odologies that would result in a thick and rich description. This process allowed group members
to share individual findings to discover commonalities for future analysis. Through this qualita-
tive study, this researcher identified and examined factors contributing to technology integration
at Baxter High School (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Following Creswell’s (2014) six-step
data analysis of the information collected via the research instruments (document review, survey,
interview, and observations) resulted in an analysis of data to address the research questions.
Discussion of Findings
As shown in Appendix F and as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, three themes emerged
from this study:
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 72
1. Support for teachers, in the form of professional development, coaching, and technical
assistance in the integration and implementation of technology, plays a vital role in the degree to
which the technology transforms the instructional practices and merges the technological, peda-
gogical, and content knowledge of teachers.
2. A teacher’s own technological skills are paramount in willingness to invest time,
explore new resources, and take risks in the integration of technology in the classroom.
3. A teacher’s beliefs about the role of technology help to lay a foundation for empower-
ing students in the learning process in a technology-enabled classroom.
The supportive environment at Baxter High School and Thurston Unified School District
has established a culture of growth that supports teachers in their development as educators. The
concepts of productive struggle and experimentation encourage the teachers and students to be
risk takers in the teaching and learning process. The administration’s support for trying new
techniques, new programs, and new room environments in an effort to identify and implement
the best delivery model appears to reduce the stress level for all involved. This finding agrees
with the literature that reports that administrative support plays a large role in the integration of
technology (Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Schrum et al., 2011). It also expands on the importance
of the administration’s belief that productive struggle and experimentation are essential in teach-
ers’ willingness to utilize unfamiliar methodologies and tools as part of their pedagogy.
Baxter and Thurston have incorporated a model of professional development that aims to
enhance teachers’ knowledge in the areas of technology, pedagogy, and content area. The profes-
sional development portion of their technology plan and the inservice sessions led by the digital
learning coaches include discussion of the theoretical frameworks, such as TPACK and SAMR.
There is explicit instruction regarding the importance of each aspect of the frameworks, as well
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 73
as the relationship between the two. Through this comprehensive focus, Baxter and Thurston are
actively closing the gap in learning how to integrate technology effectively to transform the
classroom into a learning space that will meet the needs of 21st-century students and teachers.
Understanding the methods that Baxter and Thurston have used to help teachers to close their
knowledge gap and experience the synergy of TPACK adds to the current body of literature on
this topic.
It is relatively easy to identify pockets of transformative technology integration in indi-
vidual classrooms or in isolated lessons in schools all over the world, as evidenced in the review
of literature for this case study. However, the researcher was unable to find examples that identi-
fied and described technology integration at a school or district level. This case study can serve
as a beginning for literature regarding system-level change using Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four
frames of leadership as a lens for examining how leadership can broaden technology integration
across grade levels, departments, schools, and districts. By discovering how Thurston and Baxter
provided leadership that advocated for relationships, systems, behaviors, and capital to nurture
the integration of technology throughout the organization, the connections to leadership become
more quantifiable than what current research provides.
In discussion with other members of the thematic cohort, each of the studies conducted in
fall 2015 revealed that the sample schools shared three characteristics. First, student-centered
instruction was evident in the classrooms. Second, teachers and administrators created a culture
that supported growth and change. Third, professional development, on formal and informal
levels, was essential to the transformation of teaching and learning.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 74
Within the group of schools located in Orange County, including Baxter, additional
themes emerged. At the center of the transformation that these schools were making was the
presence of a supportive culture that encompassed five areas:
1. Leadership emerged from all parties in top-down, bottom-up, and side-to-side forms.
Administration provided the policies, procedures, funding, and expectations that facilitated trans-
formation. Teachers provided feedback and direction on instructional practices to be imple-
mented. Instructional coaches guided the transformation through reinforcement.
2. Teachers could be risk takers as they worked to integrate technology in the teaching
and learning process. Those who were interviewed discussed that they were not afraid to fail at
trying something new. A collegial environment that encouraged experimentation and progression
assured educators that they could and should try new instructional strategies.
3. Instructional coaching was essential to increasing implementation of tools and tactics
that teachers had learned during professional development sessions. Coaching provided follow-
up, reassurance, and feedback to teachers in a nonthreatening environment that focused on con-
tinuous improvement.
4. Collaborating with peers played a large role in the development of technology integra-
tion. Participants reported that they were constantly learning from colleagues. This helped them
to refine their practices and increase their skills and knowledge regarding technology integration.
5. Technology integration in the teaching and learning process was campus wide. Imple-
mentation at various levels occurred across grade levels, content areas, and instructional
programs.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 75
At Baxter and Thurston, these factors acted in an almost cyclical fashion, with each of the
aspects identified above reinforcing and advancing the other, strengthening the culture of
support.
Implications for Practice
A review of many educational organizations’ publications and websites revealed articles,
resources, and theories regarding technology in the classroom. Some include best practices,
novel ideas, and success stories. However, few offer insight into the systemic demands of suc-
cessful integration and implementation of technology in the teaching and learning process. The
general media includes reports on educational technology, but typically at a surface level or to
sensationalize a potential scandal. During the course of this case study, the researcher uncovered
one potential model for systemic integration of technology that positively influences the teaching
and learning process at a time when there is no shortage of newspaper headlines reporting failed
initiatives. Learning how Baxter has avoided or minimized these mishaps along its journey
toward integration is something from which other schools and districts could benefit.
During the researcher’s visits to Baxter’s classrooms, there were many examples of
instructional practices that utilized technology and expanded learning beyond the content area.
Using cross-curricular assignments, students demonstrated their ability to apply their under-
standing across disciplines. Technology played a pivotal role in this process, supporting the four
Cs as well. Making connections from subject to subject or lesson to lesson facilitated the
students’ attainment of the 21st-century skills, knowledge, and expertise necessary to succeed in
and beyond the classroom (Holzer, 2012; Keane et al., 2013; Larson & Miller, 2011; Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, 2011). This process of analyzing information, evaluating findings, and
creating solutions also helps students to move into the metacognitive dimension of thinking
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 76
(Krathwohl, 2006) and advances their learning and innovation skills. This technology-enabled
interdisciplinary learning provided experiences for students to strengthen inquiry skills through
the complex process of testing hypotheses and synthesizing learning, all of which leads to a
greater understanding of the standards and concepts necessary to be college and career ready
(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011) .
Ensuring that staff has the capacity to fulfill the vision and goals of an organization is
paramount in attaining excellence and longevity of the accomplishment. Technology integration
in the teaching and learning process is a second-order change that represents a paradigm shift
and requires leaders to be innovative in their approach to implementation (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005). Baxter’s and Thurston’s plan for technology integration outlines long-term
support for administrators, teachers, students, and families and is congruent with the findings
reported by Marzano and Waters (2008) in their meta-study regarding district leadership. The
establishment of non-negotiable goals and resource alignment has provided the foundation that
leads to decisions about teaching and learning through technology integration (Marzano &
Waters, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). Teachers reported that leaders are transparent in their deci-
sion making and they empower instructional staff through shared decision making (Bolman &
Deal, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). Thus, everyone understands the reasons for fiscal determina-
tions, hardware and software selection, and instructional design. Those who are not directly
involved in the process are presented the rationale. All stakeholders participate in professional
development. There is defined autonomy that allows teachers to determine how and when they
integrate technology in the teaching and learning process (Marzano & Waters, 2008; Marzano et
al., 2005). As personnel changes, Baxter and Thurston have positioned themselves to be in a
place of stability without being sedentary.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 77
Recommendations for Future Research
Considering the themes that emerged during the analysis process described in Chapter 4,
the researcher recommends the following areas for further research:
1. Return to Thurston to conduct additional interviews and surveys regarding the role of
leadership in creating a supportive district-level culture for effective implementation.
2. Study the leadership styles and philosophies employed in the change process at
Thurston, Baxter, and other institutions as they attempt to transform the teaching and learning
process through use of technology.
3. Replicate this study at other schools, such as those with populations with socioeco-
nomic and linguistic needs different from those at Baxter.
4. Conduct the study in a school district that has not passed a multimillion-dollar bond, to
determine additional strategies for ensuring access and support for technology integration in the
teaching and learning process.
5. Return to Baxter in 5 years to perform the study again to determine whether the ele-
ments leading to successful integration have continued and whether additional strategies are
being used.
6. Conduct a study of California-based teaching programs to determine how teachers’
beliefs about technology integration are formed and fostered in those programs.
Conclusion
As the world evolves into a global community, the education system has been challenged
to prepare students for a life that requires collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and
creativity. An opportunity for students to learn in an environment that facilitates their
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 78
development and empowers their thoughts provides them with conditions to practice and apply
their knowledge and skills. Technology is a tool that aids in this performance.
This case study builds on the current literature and expands the knowledge base for iden-
tifying and understanding the dynamics of a school that is integrating and implementing technol-
ogy in the teaching and learning process. By considering the emergent themes and replicating the
critical components, educators can utilize this case study to create a culture of support that
stimulates the transformation of teaching and learning. When technology is used as a tool to
bring together technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge and redefine lessons that
advance the four Cs, teachers and students gain from experiences that transform the teaching and
learning process.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 79
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). 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.
Baker, F. (2010). Media literacy, 21st-century literacy skills. In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21:
Essential education for a changing world (pp. 133-152). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
California Department of Education. (2006). 2005-06 APR glossary. Retrieved from http://
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary06e.asp
California Department of Education. (2013). Large and small public school districts. Retrieved
from www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceflargeandsmalllist
California Department of Education. (2014). School quality snapshot. Retrieved from http://
www.cde.ca.gov/schoolqualitysnapshot/sqsreport.aspx?id=C68A6D85-9520-4FD1-
8E29-92E7811F5C8E
California Department of Education. (2015a). CAHSEE frequently asked questions. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/faq.asp
California Department of Education. (2015b). California Gold Ribbon Schools program.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/sr/gr/
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 80
California Department of Education. (2015c). California school directory. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/details.asp?cds=&public=Y
California Department of Education. (2015d). Certificated staff experience report. Retrieved
from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Staff/StaffExp.aspx?cSelect=Baxter^Hi--
Thurston^Unified^=2014-15&cChoice=SchExp&cType
California Department of Education. (2015e). Proposition 98. Retrieved from http://www.cde
.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/prop98.asp
California Parent Teacher Association. (2014). Quick guide to understanding the new
accountability plans for schools. Retrieved from capta.org/focus-areas/lcfflcap/
accountability-plans/
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2010). It takes some getting used to: Rethinking curriculum for the 21st
century. In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world
(pp. 210-226). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-
risk students’ learning. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing (2nd ed,.).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree .
Education Technology Task Force. (2014). Empowering education: A blueprint for California
education technology. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 81
Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42, 255-284.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., & Sendurur, E. P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and
technology integraion practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Eduction, 59, 423-
435.
Fairman, J. (2004). Trading roles: Teachers and students learn with technology. Orono, ME:
Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
Feeney, E. (2014). Design principles for learning to guide teacher walk throughs. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 87(1), 21-29.
Foundation for Excellence in Education. (2014). Digital learning now. Retrieved from http://
digitallearningnow.com/
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Tech Research
Development, 55, 223-252.
Holzer, H. (2012). Good workers for good jobs: Improving education and workforce systems in
the US. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 1(1), 1-19.
Keane, T., Keane, W., & Bilcblau, A. (2013, July). The use of educational technologies to equip
students with 21st-century skills. Paper presented at the 29th annual World Conference on
Computers in Education, Torun, Poland.
Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, C., Spector, J., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 82
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Retrievevd from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
Kopcha, T. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices
with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59,
1109-1121.
Krathwohl, D. (2006). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5-8.
Larson, L., & Miller, T. (2011). 21st-century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta
Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123.
Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of Educationa Research, 77, 575-614.
Lazakidou, G., & Retailis, S. (2012). Using computer-supported collaborative learning strategies
for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics.
Computers & Education, 54(1), 3-13.
Leonard, L., & Leonard, P. (2006). Leadership for technology integration: Computing the reality.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 212-224.
Licthman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2008). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 83
Matzen, N., & Edmonds, J. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional
development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417-430.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Microsoft. (2015). Microsoft showcase schools. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/education/school-leaders/showcase-schools/default.aspx
Miles, M., Huberrman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education
Foundation.
Niguidula, D. (2010). Digital portfolios and curriculum maps: Linking teacher and student work.
In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world (pp. 153-
168). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., & Poirot, J. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of
educational technology in K–12. Journal of Research o Technology in Education, 36(1),
15-28.
November, A. (2010). Power down or power up? In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21: Essential
education for a changing world (pp. 186-194). Alexandria, CA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st-century learning. Retrieved
from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 84
Popejoy, K. (2003). Technology integration in an elementary science classroom: Its impact on
teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Association of Research in Science
Teaching.
Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html
Ravitch, D. (2007). EdSpeak. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Ritzhaupt, A., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing
student use of technology in K–12 classrooms using path analysis. Educational
Computing Research, 46, 229-254.
Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating
mLearning. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264549561_
The_SAMR_Model_as_a_Framework_for_Evaluating_mLearning
Schrum, L., Galizio, L., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology
integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School
Leadership, 21(2), 241-261.
Sheskey, B. (2010). Creating learning connections. In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21:
Essential education for a changing world (pp. 195-209). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shieh, R. (2012). The impact of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) implementation on
student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context. Computers & Education,
59, 206-214.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 85
Sundeen, T. (2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: Access and acquisition. Rural
Special Education Quarterly, 32(2), 8-14.
Thurston Unified School District (pseudonym). (2013a). Baxter High School mission statement.
Retrieved from the Internet (url withheld to maintain confidentiality)
Thurston Unified School District (pseudonym). (2013b). Technology plan. (Location withheld to
maintain confidentiality)
Thurston Unified School District (pseudonym). (2014). 2014-15 goals and priorities. Retrieved
from the Internet (url withheld to maintain confidentiality)
Thurston Unified School District (pseudonym). (2015). Baxter High School SARC. (Location
withheld to maintain confidentiality)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Computers and internet use in United States. Retrieved from
census.gov:http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs
-28.pdf
U.S. Commerce Department. (2011). Fact sheet:Digital literacy. Retrieved from Commerce.gov:
http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2011/05/13/fact-sheet-digital-literacy
U.S. Congress. (2002). Public Law 107-110, 107th Congress: An act to close the achivement gap
with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). High school graduation rate. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Education Technology Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 86
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). School composition and the Black-White achievement
gap: National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for
Educational Statistics.
U.S. News and World Report. (2015). Best high schools. Retrieved from http://www.usnews
.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/thurston-unf/baxter-high-school-
3585
Valiente, O. (2010). 1-1 in education: Current practice, international comparitive research
evidence and policy implications (OECD Working Papers, No. 44). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46456692_1-1_in_Education_Current_Practice
_International_Comparative_Research_Evidence_and_Policy_Implications_OECD
_Education_Working_Papers_No_44
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2015). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved
from http://www.acswasc.org/faq.htm#1
Wilmarth, S. (2010). Five socio-technology trends that change everything in learning and
teaching. In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world
(pp. 80-96). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(5910). 82-85. doi:
10.1126/science.1167705
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 87
APPENDIX A
DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL
RQ 1: How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
How are teachers using instructional tech-
nology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
How are students using instructional tech-
nology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics

RQ 2: What factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills and pedagogy to utilize tech-
nology as an instructional tool?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Teacher education programs
Professional Development
Personal knowledge/research
Teacher responses
Professional development records
Staff meeting/training agendas

RQ #3 - In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and implemen-
tation?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Types of PD
Resources
School plan
Professional development records
IT Support Coaching/observation schedules
Site Budget LCAP Plan
Site Budget Process
Coaching – formal and informal
Staff meeting/training agendas
SARC
WASC Documents

RQ #4 - What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Educators’ Beliefs School Plan
Lesson Plans
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 88
APPENDIX B
EDUCATIONAL STAFF 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
My instruction involves use of technol-
ogy.

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

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

My lessons embed student use of tech-
nology in the classroom.

My lessons embed student use of tech-
nology outside of the classroom.

Students are encouraged to work col-
laboratively with other students while
using technology.

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

I use technology to differentiate
instruction.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 89

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

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

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

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

IT support staff is available to assist
when needed.

A mentor is available to support tech-
nology integration.

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

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

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

Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning.

Technology is an important part of
teaching and learning.

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

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 90
APPENDIX C
EDUCATIONAL STAFF INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1: How do educators at
school X integrate technol-
ogy to support students
learning?

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

RQ2: What factors do educa-
tors attribute their
knowledge of skills and
pedagogy to utilize technol-
ogy as an instructional tool?

1. To what do you attribute your background
knowledge of technology?
2. How do you continue to acquire knowledge of tech-
nology 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 edu-
cators at School X provided
support for technology
integration and implemen-
tation?

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 inte-
grating technology in the curriculum?
4. What are some obstacles in implementing technol-
ogy in student learning?
5. Is there anything else you would you like to
share?

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 91

RQ4: What are educators’
beliefs about technology
integration and implemen-
tation 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 teach-
ing? Why?
6. Is there anything else you would you like to
share?

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 92
APPENDIX D
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 93

Date: ________ Course/Grade:_____ Teacher:______________
Student Demographics
Number of Students: Male: Female:
Instructional Programs
Sped: EL: GATE: Accelerated: GE: Remedial:
Race/Ethnicity
AA: A: H: W: O:
Teacher Behavior: Student Behavior:

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 94
APPENDIX E
EDUCATIONAL STAFF SURVEY RESULTS

Integration of Instructional Technology - Results
Demographic Information
1
0-5 Years
2
6-15 Years
3
16-25 Years
4
26 +
Years
How many years have you been teaching? 13 -19% 31 – 45% 20- 29% 5 -7%
Student Learning
1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of the
Time
4
Almost
Always
My instruction involves use of technology. 0 – 0% 15 – 21% 30 – 43% 24 – 35%
My lessons encourage creativity and innova-
tion through student use of technology.
4 – 6% 35 – 51% 22 – 32% 8 – 12%
My lessons embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem-
solving through student use of technology
2 – 3% 31 – 45% 25 – 36% 11 – 16%
My lessons embed student use of technology
in the classroom.
2 - 3% 23 – 33% 30 – 43% 14 – 20%
My lessons embed student use of technology
outside of the classroom.
2 – 3 % 35 - 51% 21 – 30% 11 – 16%
Students are encouraged to work collabora-
tively with other students while using tech-
nology.
5 – 7% 25 – 36% 24 – 35% 15 – 22%
Professional development (PD) sessions have
improved my use of technology in the class-
room.
3 – 4% 24 – 35% 20 - 29% 22 – 32%
I use technology to differentiate instruction. 9 – 13% 28 – 41% 26 – 38% 6 – 9%
Technology Skills
1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of the
Time
4
Almost
Always
I use technology daily in a variety of ways to
present lessons.
3 – 4% 17 – 25% 23 – 33% 26 – 38%
I use technology in a variety of ways to
assess student learning.
3 – 4% 33 – 48% 22 - 32% 12 – 17%
I go out of my way to stay current on the new
innovations with technology.
3 – 4% 31 – 45% 21 – 30% 13 – 19%
Technology Support
1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of the
Time
4
Almost
Always
Use of technology is encouraged and pro-
moted at my school.
0 – 0% 0 – 0% 12 – 17% 57 – 83%
IT support staff is available to assist when
needed.
1 – 1% 5 – 7% 10 - 14% 53 - 77%
A mentor is available to support technology
integration.
0 – 0% 3 – 4% 8 - 12 % 58 – 84%
Use of instructional technology is a 0 – 0% 3 – 4% 11 – 16% 55 – 78%
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 95
component of my school’s culture.
Teachers are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional
technology.
1 – 1% 7 – 10% 20 – 29% 41 – 59%
Technology Beliefs
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
I support the use of technology in the
classroom.
0 – 0% 1 – 1% 30 – 43% 38 – 55%
Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning.
0 – 0% 3 – 4% 43 – 62% 23 – 33%
Technology is an important part of teaching
and learning.
0 – 0% 5 – 7% 39 – 57% 25 – 36%
My classroom is student-centered. 0 – 0% 1 – 1 % 33 – 48% 35 – 51%
My students are empowered to be
responsible for their own learning.
0 – 0% 2 – 3 % 32 – 46% 35 – 51%

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 96
APPENDIX F
TRIANGULATION CHART
Research Question Documents Survey Interview Observation
1. How do educators at Baxter
High School integrate technology
to support students learning?
x x x x
1. To what factors do educators
at Baxter High School attribute
their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy
to utilize technology as an
instructional tool?
x x x
1. In what ways are educators at
Baxter High School provided
support for technology
integration and implementation?
x x x x
1. What are educators’ beliefs
about technology integration and
implementation at Baxter High
School?

x x x

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative case study examined the role of instructional technology in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K-12 school that is actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. Using Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as conceptual frameworks for analyzing technology integration and Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s four frames of leadership to analyze the organizational leadership, three themes emerged that characterized Baxter High School’s integration and implementation of technology in the classroom. Support of teachers, in the form of professional development, coaching, and technical assistance, in the integration and implementation of technology plays a vital role in the degree to which the technology transforms instructional practices and merges the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of teachers. A teacher’s technological skills are paramount in the willingness to invest time, explore new resources, and take risks in the integration of technology in the classroom. Individual teacher beliefs about the role of technology help to lay the foundation for empowering students in the learning process in a technology‐enabled classroom. Findings from this case study revealed that, when a culture of support that includes shared leadership, experimentation, instructional coaching, collaboration, and campus‐wide access technology integration can transform the teaching and learning process.

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

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator MacKinney, Kimberly M. (author)

Core Title Technology integration at a 21st-century school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/15/2016

Defense Date 02/08/2016

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

Tag instructional technology,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,SAMR,technology integration,TPACK,transformation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email kmackinn@usc.edu,Kmackinney@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-220394

Unique identifier UC11277438

Identifier etd-MacKinneyK-4199.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-220394 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MacKinneyK-4199.pdf

Dmrecord 220394

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights MacKinney, Kimberly M.

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