University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Transformational technology practices: a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 1

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES: A CASE STUDY
by
Margaret Ervais
____________________________________________________________________
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 Margaret Ervais
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I thank my family, who has been on this journey with me. My
husband Rob has provided unfailing support, including proofreading every paper I have
submitted over the past 3 years. He has been my rock and my cheerleader, and he has taken on
extra family duties to ensure that I had time to complete everything. My sons, Kelvin and Ethan,
are my greatest inspiration; during our time together in Nicaragua, I made the decision to
continue my education alongside them. I learn with them and from them each and every day.
My parents were my first and most important teachers and they continue to provide support,
love, and words of encouragement. I am fortunate to have had many mentors over the years,
including colleagues, teachers, professors, and friends─too many to list but I am indebted to
them and all they have shared with me. Dr. Gothold has been a wonderful dissertation
chairperson, providing leadership and feedback to our cohort at every step of the process. My
friends from our Orange County campus have made this work manageable, meaningful, and even
fun. Finally, the young people I have worked with over the last twenty-five years have been a
major source of inspiration; they are at the heart of the work we do every day, and the reason we
need to be dedicated to continuous improvement so they experience transformative educational
practices in our classrooms and schools.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Limitations and Delimitations 12
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of the Dissertation 14
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 15
Purpose of the Study 17
Barriers to Implementation 20
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs 23
Transforming Pedagogy 25
Learner-Centered Instruction 25
Constructivism and PBL 26
The TPACK Framework 26
Learner-Centered Professional Development 28
Benefits of Teachers Embracing Technology 30
Transformative Practices in Action 32
Conclusion 34
Chapter 3: Methodology 36
Sample and Population 37
Instrumentation 39
Data Collection 42
Data Analysis 44
Chapter Summary 44
Chapter 4: Results 46
Research Question 1 47
Research Question 2 51
Research Question 3 53
Research Question 4 55
SAMR and TPACK 57
Culture at School X 58
A Culture Where One Size Does Not Fit All 58
A Culture That Supports Exploration and Risk Taking 59
A Culture of Shared and Evolving Expertise 60
A Student-Centered Culture 61
Conclusion 62
Chapter 5: Discussion and Findings 63
Discussion of Findings 64
Implications for Practice 69
Future Research 70
Conclusion 71
References 73
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 4
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 77
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 79
Appendix C: Teacher Technology Survey 81
Appendix D: Document Review Protocol 83
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Alignment of Research Questions and Interview Questions 40
Table 2: Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 1 (Student Learning) 48
Table 3: Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 2 (Technology Skills) 53
Table 4: Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 3 (Technology Support) 54
Table 5: Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 4 (Technology Beliefs) 56
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The SAMR model: Substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition 19
Figure 2: The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model 27
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 7
ABSTRACT
With the implementation of Common Core State Standards and computerized-adaptive
state testing, there has been a focus on ensuring greater access to technology in K–12 classrooms
across the United States. However, without a profound shift in instructional practices, these
powerful technologies are largely underutilized. Many educators incorporate technology
primarily as a productivity tool, without changing the way they teach. This case study
investigated the dynamics of a public middle school that actively integrated and implemented
technology in curriculum and instruction. The study addressed four research questions related to
a selected case study school: (a) How do educators integrate technology to support students’
learning? (b) To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of instructional technology
skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool? (c) In what ways are educators
provided support for technology integration and implementation? and (d) What are educators’
beliefs about technology integration and implementation? Data were analyzed based on the
substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR) model of technology
implementation. The model considers the modification and redefinition levels of implementation
to be transformational. Results indicated a prevalence of transformational practices at the case
study school and that four themes were related to the culture in the school: (a) a one-size-does-
not-fit-all attitude toward implementation, (b) support for exploration and risk taking, (c) shared
and evolving expertise, and (d) a student-centered approach to teaching and learning. As
educational leaders continue to make decisions about technology implementation, it is important
that they examine successful models that support a change in teaching and learning as a result of
transformational technology practices.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 8
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Technology is evolving at a rapid pace and access to instructional technology in schools
is higher than ever. Whether they are using a one-to-one program or a bring-your-own device
(BYOD) program, educators are moving quickly to outfit schools and students with the latest
tools. Students are viewed as digital natives, growing up with technology as a part of their daily
lives. In the United States America, today’s K–12 students have never known a world without
Internet, smart phones, and access to on-demand information that those resources provide.
Educators are preparing students for a global job market that is also evolving and, in some cases,
for jobs that do not currently exist. The large-scale adoption and implementation of the nation’s
first set of common standards for K–12 education have brought the instructional technology
discussion to the forefront as states implement the technology-based assessments that measure
the standards. While educators are grappling with which devices to purchase for common core
testing and whether the current bandwidth and infrastructure can accommodate these new
statewide online tests, it is important not to lose sight of the larger issue: How is this focus on
instructional technology affecting teaching and learning for K–12 students?
Background of the Problem
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) released a draft of the National
Educational Technology Plan. This groundbreaking document was developed in response to
President Barack Obama’s “Educate to Innovate” campaign. The plan calls for a significant shift
beyond the use of instructional technology as a productivity tool and toward implementation of
technology to facilitate development of the critical 21st-century skills: communication,
collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity (Atkins et al., 2010). This agenda is consistent with
research on instructional technology that suggests that, although technology has become more
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 9
available in American schools, its use continues to focus on efficiently performing tasks that
have always been done in classrooms (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreeit-Leftwich,
2013; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). This limited use falls short of the potential of employing
powerful technologies to transform teaching and learning.
The nation has made a significant shift from the industrial age to the information age, yet
schools have been slow to change. Students are now being prepared for a knowledge-based
workforce and the role of education must evolve if students are to be competitive in the emerging
global marketplace (Atkins et al., 2010; Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008).
What does education look like if students are preparing for the demands of the 21st
century? Researchers suggest that the role of the teacher is to facilitate learner-centered
environments where students utilize technology to collaborate and communicate and to think
critically and creatively to solve real-world problems (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer &
Ottenbreeit-Leftwich, 2010). Students should be engaged in problem-based learning where they
are operating at the highest levels of cognition. Problem-based learning engages students in
meaningful inquiry, and technology is particularly suited to facilitate this type of model (Walker
et al., 2012).
The authors of the National Education Technology Plan were clear about the nation’s
need to act: “As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, there has never been a more
pressing need to transform American education and there will never be a better time to act”
(Atkins et al., 2010, p. xii). In positioning for this change, identifying successful examples of
schools that have realized or are moving toward this vision is a critical next step.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 10
Statement of the Problem
Technology is a tool to increase student collaboration, communication, critical thinking,
and creativity. Although the presence of K–12 classroom technology has increased, its
integration and implementation into curriculum and instruction is inconsistent. Powerful 21st-
century tools are largely underutilized or used primarily for administrative productivity and
efficiency. Unless educators re-imagine teaching and learning as a result of the powerful
resources that are widely available, they risk the opportunity to develop students who can
participate successfully in the knowledge workforce.
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. With the
adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the new Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC) online statewide tests, technology has never been more of a
focus in K–12 education. CCSS explicitly and implicitly calls for use of technology to facilitate
development of Common Core 21st-century skills: critical thinking, collaboration,
communication, and creativity. Examining schools with transformational technology practices is
particularly useful at this time.
Research Questions
The information collected through this case study addressed four research questions.
1. How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
2. To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 11
3. In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
“School X” signifies a particular case study school selected by this researcher, who was a
member of a research cohort.
Significance of the Study
Technology is constantly changing and evolving. However, examples of transformative
instructional technology implementation in schools are limited (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer &
Ottenbreet-Leftwich, 2013; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). While there are examples of promising
practices among individual teachers or groups of teachers, exemplars of schoolwide
implementation are limited. This qualitative case study provides a rich description of the
practices in a school community focused on harnessing powerful instructional technology to
transform teaching and learning. In documenting educator beliefs, practices, training, and
support at School X, the broader educational community has specific exemplars of technology
implementation in a diverse public school. By examining this and other case studies, researchers
and educators can understand this phenomenon, including common themes that emerged during
the analysis phase. This study is part of a larger undertaking involving 2 years of similar
research. The 21 case studies, in their entirety, provide fertile ground for qualitative comparisons
of the phenomenon across multiple educational environments. Ten of the studies utilized the
same research questions and protocols. Four of the 21 studies were conducted in the same school
district. This body of work provides an opportunity to compare technology implementation
across schools within a district and across schools serving similar demographics.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 12
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was conducted at a single middle school, which creates limitations for
generalizability. It is a diverse school in a medium-size district. The information captured over
the course of several research visits is limited to that period of time. According to Merriam
(2009), the intention of qualitative case study research is to develop an “in-depth description and
analysis of a bounded system” (p. 40); in this case, the bounded system was a single middle
school serving a diverse student population. The delimitation of this particular study was to
provide a rich description of a school that is utilizing technology in transformative ways. The
school was identified through purposeful rather than random sampling to ensure a stronger
likelihood of observable and useful results (Merriam, 2009). The protocols used were also
delimited since they were part of a set of case studies completed by a cohort of 10 researchers.
By triangulating data from multiple sources and comparing the data to existing research, real-life
examples of transformative practices are documented in a richly descriptive narrative.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used throughout the dissertation.
21st-century skills: As defined in the Common Core State Standards and the USDE
National Education Technology Plan (USDE, 2010), 21st-century skills include collaboration,
communication, creativity, and critical thinking. Technology plays a key role in all four.
Common Core State Standards: A set of national standards developed by government,
education, and business leaders that identify the critical 21st-century learner competencies
needed for success in postsecondary education and the knowledge workforce. Organized by
grade level and subject area, the standards represent the first successful attempt to establish
common national education standards across states (CCSS Initiative, 2015).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 13
Project-based learning (PBL): In PBL, students work to solve contextual, creative and
shared problems. Students solve relevant and meaningful real-world problems using
collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking. The emphasis is on applying
knowledge at high levels (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC): One of two nationwide assessment
systems that measure student proficiency on the CCSS. SBAC consists of constructed response
assessments and performance tasks in English Language Arts and mathematics. This new
assessment system will be given, in its entirety, for the first time in California in spring 2015.
(SBAC, 2015).
SAMR model: Developed by Ruben Puentedura (2014), the SAMR model provides a
theoretical framework for instruction technology implementation. The model divides technology
into four levels: substitution (S), augmentation (A), modification (M), and redefinition (R). The
substitution level represents the use of technology with no improvement to the task.
Augmentation describes utilization with functional improvement. Both of these levels are viewed
as enhancements. Modification represents the use of technology with significant task
improvement or redesign. Redefinition is the stage in implementation in which students use
technology to accomplish tasks that would otherwise be impossible. The final two levels of use
are considered by Puentedura to be transformational.
Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): A theoretical framework
for understanding technology implementation across three knowledge levels. TK is technological
knowledge, CK is content knowledge, and PK is pedagogical knowledge. TPK represents
technological pedagogical knowledge, TCK represents technological content knowledge, and
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 14
PCK represents pedagogical content knowledge. TPACK is technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge in combination (TPACK.org, 2015).
Transformational technology: As defined by Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2011),
transformational technology represents a shift from a monolithic, one-size-for-all educational
environment toward a student-centric learning model where teaching and learning are
customized by harnessing powerful technologies to serve and support each learner’s individual
needs.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the
topic of the study and an overview of the study. Chapter 2 offers a thorough review of the
literature related to the research and explains the purpose of the study and the themes that
emerged during the literature review. Chapter 3 describes the research design, including the
sample population, instrumentation, and data collection and data analysis procedures. Chapter 4
presents the research findings as they relate to each of the research questions. Chapter 5 contains
a discussion of the findings, including implications for practice and recommendations for further
research.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 15
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In order to analyze the impact of technology on teaching and learning in the K–12 setting,
it is important to understand the background, context, and previous research on this topic. For the
past century, the K–12 educational system in the United States has been structured to sort
students along a spectrum of achievement. Time and content were held constant, student
achievement was the variable, and students were consequently evaluated and sorted based on
their mastery of curriculum within a set time frame (Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008). While this design
was arguably flawed from a learning perspective, it was successful in sorting students for the
various roles available during the Industrial Age. However, the shift from the Industrial Age to
the Information Age called for a shift from a factory model of schooling (An & Reigeluth, 2011;
Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008; USDE, 2010). So why do today’s schools look strikingly similar to
schools of 50 years ago? What is the role of technology in a school that is successfully preparing
students for the knowledge demands of a 21st-century global economy?
Technology has been a part of education since its beginnings, whether in the form of
papyrus, slate board, chalk, pencil, or overhead projector; educators have utilized available tools
to tutor and to teach. In the 21st century, educational technology has become ubiquitous (Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Project Tomorrow, 2011), but these
new tools have largely been used to replicate existing educational practices (An & Reigeluth,
2011; Christensen et al., 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Kopcha, 2012; Somekh,
2008). Researchers are calling for a shift in focus from the integration of technology into existing
structures toward transformation of education through the harnessing of powerful educational
technologies in new and different ways (Christensen et al., 2011; Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Hokanson & Hooper, 2004; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Reigeluth &
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 16
Duffy, 2008)—“a revolutionary transformation rather than an evolutionary tinkering” (Atkins et
al., 2010, p. v).
To evaluate how the integration of technology in education is unfolding, it is useful to
consider models that highlight the stages of integration during the change process. Hokanson and
Hooper (2004) described five stages: familiarization, utilization, integration, reorientation, and
evolutionary. At the evolutionary stage, the focus is not on a particular technology but on how
adoption and innovation lead to changes and improvements in learning that allow students to
generate their own knowledge with the support of technology (Hokanson & Hooper, 2004). The
SAMR model also characterizes the stages of integration: Substitution and augmentation
describe stages of integration in which technology is considered an enhancement; modification
and redefinition mark the stages of integration in which the use of technology is transformative
(Puentedura, 2014).
The technology that is available today has the potential to transform education for
students and prepare them for a future that continues to evolve. Students need to be able to
collaborate, communicate, and solve problems using technology to accomplish tasks in new and
novel ways (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Atkins et al., 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2013), and students have clear ideas about the type of schooling that they prefer to
accomplish these goals. Students want learning environments that are collaborative, flexible, and
technology rich, where digital tools provide access to a variety of personalized learning
experiences that are not bound by classroom walls (Project Tomorrow, 2011). Educators call this
type of school environment learner centered; it is worthwhile to study schools that have
successfully moved toward this educational model.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 17
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. For the past 7
years, the United States has seen an unprecedented focus on development and implementation of
a set of national education standards. As of June 2014, the CCSS had been adopted by 43 states,
the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense schools (CCSS
Initiative, 2015). A collaboration among politicians, educators, and business leaders, among
others, the CCSS focus on critical 21st-century learning skills that are necessary for success
beyond high school. The standards recognize a shift in what the current generation of K–12
students will need to be able to do in order to be prepared for a knowledge-driven workforce that
will include jobs that do not currently exist. While the CCSS have not been without controversy,
there is consensus among researchers that the critical 21st-century skills that students will need
include collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking (An & Reigeluth, 2011;
Atkins et al., 2010; CCSS Initiative, 2015; Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2013).
In order to meet the rigorous standards and prepare students for college and career,
researchers are calling for a new model of teaching and learning that embraces the use of
instructional technology to create more constructivist, problem-based, and learner-centered
schools (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Christensen et al., 2011, Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
USDE, 2010). In their book Disrupting Class, Christensen et al. (2011) highlighted the struggle
between traditional practices of educational standardization and the current need for educational
customization, suggesting that technology increases the potential for “student-centric” schools.
This idea of learner-centered education is echoed throughout the research and is considered
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 18
critical for developing students who are prepared for the information-age workforce (An &
Reigeluth, 2011; Atkins et al., 2010; Christensen et al., 2011). An and Reigeluth (2011)
characterized learner-centered classrooms as learning environments that embrace the following
components: personalized and customized learning, social and emotional support, self-
regulation, collaborative and authentic learning experiences, and assessment for learning.
Technology plays an important role in this new paradigm.
While technology integration is more widespread in classrooms, it is still less common to
find instances in which teachers utilize technology effectively to transform instruction by
creating learning environments that could not exist without the transformational practices of
collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking that technology makes possible
(Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008; USDE, 2010). Ruben Puentedura (2014) developed his four-level
SAMR model (Figure 1) to explain the shift in educational technology use necessary for 21st-
century schooling.
Substitution describes the use of technology to complete a task with no functional
improvement. Augmentation is the stage in which the substitution has functional improvement.
Modification is the point at which tasks can be redesigned because of technology. Redefinition
occurs when previously inconceivable tasks are possible because of technology. It is in these last
two stages that Puentedura viewed technology as transformational rather than an enhancement.
Nearly 20 years ago, Jonassen and Reeves characterized the redefinition stage as follows:
“Cognitive tools are essential components of a learning environment in which learners are
required to think harder about the subject-matter domain being studied or the task being
undertaken and to generate thoughts that would be impossible without these tools” (1996, as
cited in Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013, p. 176). Grounded in Jonassen’s work, Ertmer and
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 19

Figure 1. The SAMR model: Substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. From
SAMR in the Classroom, by R. Puentedura, 2014, retrieved from http://cdno2.gettingsmart.com/
wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SAMR_model.png
Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) continued the idea of transformation by asking educators to focus on
the verbs of teaching with technology, not the nouns (tools) so that technology integration
focuses on authentic learning and technology acts as a cognitive tool.
While teachers have had increased access to powerful instructional tools, the use of those
tools continues to be dominated by productivity and administrative tasks and drills (An &
Reigeluth, 2011; Christensen et al., 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Kopcha, 2012;
Somekh, 2008). As researchers examine why these powerful tools have generally not been used
in transformational ways, several themes have emerged. The teacher has long been viewed as the
deliverer of content, the “sage on the stage,” or the director of student learning. That is how most
teachers were taught and that model is largely perpetuated in today’s classrooms. Utilizing
technology to support a student-driven, learner-centered classroom can be unsettling to teachers
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 20
who like to be in control, to be the authority in the classroom (Somekh, 2008). In addition to
complications at the individual level, system-wide obstacles exist.
Christensen et al. (2011) highlighted an obstacle that they called cramming: new
technologies have largely been “crammed” into the existing model of schooling rather than
serving as a catalyst for development of a new model. Generally, teachers have incorporated
technology into existing practices, falling short of the potential to shift to a learner-centered
model (Marzen & Edmunds, 2007). Reigeluth and Duffy (2008) cautioned that piecemeal or site-
level reforms face an uphill battle in the attempt to transform educational practices because of
external system-level pressure to return to more traditional practices. However, there are
examples of successful school-level models. This research study investigated the dynamics of a
school that is actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction in
order to transform teaching and learning.
Barriers to Implementation
In the past two decades, discussions about barriers to implementation of technology in the
classroom have shifted. In the 1980s, as the personal computer became a common tool, teachers
considered themselves fortunate if they had access to a computer laboratory or a single
classroom computer. The 1990s saw a focus on providing classrooms with access to the Internet,
including NetDay events when volunteers wired classrooms and schools (Project Tomorrow,
2011). As more computers entered classrooms and Internet access became commonplace in
schools, the shift in discussion of barriers moved beyond mere acquisition of technology to the
barriers related to instructional use. That is not to say that conversations about acquisition have
not continued. The proliferation of new tools such as smart boards, tablets, projectors, and
document cameras has continued the discussion about access to tools. However, the general
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 21
discussion in the past decade has shifted toward barriers related to integration of instructional
technology.
Hew and Brush (2007) developed six broad categories of barriers to technology
integration: resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs, assessment, and
subject culture. Resources include access to the various components of technology, the time
required for teachers to prepare and implement instructional technology, and all aspects of
technical support. Knowledge and skills include an understanding of the technology itself, the
pedagogical knowledge needed to incorporate technology in teaching and learning, and the
classroom management necessary for successful implementation. Hew and Brush used the
category of institution to describe the barriers related to school leadership, scheduling and
planning. Attitudes and beliefs describe barriers related to teachers’ perceptions of the positive
and negative aspects of integration and their opinions about the value of instructional technology.
Assessment as a barrier refers to the pressure that teachers feel related to high-stakes testing.
Finally, subject culture refers to the general understanding that delineates the way a content
subject has been taught historically (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Researchers have categorized barriers to implementation of technology in today’s
classrooms in terms of first- and second-order barriers, seeing both as having significant and
connected impact. First-order barriers are external barriers outside of teacher control (lack of
resources, institutional culture, etc.), while second-order barriers are teacher-centered barriers
(knowledge, belief, skills, etc.; An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). In
their survey of 126 teachers, An and Reigeluth (2011) found that lack of technology, lack of
time, and high-stakes assessments ranked highest among first-order barriers. However,
significant strides have been made to reduce first-order barriers, and second-order barriers are
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 22
now considered the critical tipping point for true realization of technology’s potential (Ertmer et
al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). Teachers consider a lack of knowledge about
learner-centered instruction and how it is enhanced by technology to be the most significant
second-order barrier (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
While there are general first- and second-order barriers that affect all students, barriers
that affect teachers who are working with low-income students and students of color are even
more critical. Currently, low-income students make up nearly half of the nation’s public school
population; minority students also account for close to half of K–12 public school enrollment
(Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, & Goldman, 2014). It is less likely that these two at-risk
student populations will have home access to computers or the Internet. While more than half of
teachers working in schools with economically advantaged students reported that students had
the necessary technology tools at home, only 3% of teachers working with large populations of
economically disadvantaged students indicated that their students had the necessary tools in the
home setting (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). When such a digital divide exists, what occurs
within the classroom setting becomes even more important, so eliminating barriers for teacher
implementation is critical.
Strategies for overcoming barriers are cited in various studies. Hew and Brush (2007)
summarized their findings as follows: develop a shared vision and plan, secure sufficient
resources, adjust beliefs and attitudes, provide professional development, and assess learning
differently. While it is important for educators to consider barriers to implementation at various
systems levels, for the purpose of this study, additional discussion focuses on the teacher and
school levels.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 23
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs
Evidence suggests that the decision to embrace learner-centered instruction with
technology is significantly tied to teachers’ beliefs (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010, 2013; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Somekh, 2008; Straub, 2009), so it is
important to understand the connection between beliefs and implementation. As explained
previously, there are several categories of potential barriers to technology integration,
particularly in support of learner-centered instructional environments. However, teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes can determine the impact of certain barriers. When teachers refuse to allow first-
order barriers to impede their progress, they are more likely to utilize technology to create
learner-centered classrooms (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013).
Straub (2009) studied this phenomenon through the lenses of adoption and diffusion
theories. Adoption theory specifically focuses on why an individual accepts or rejects an
innovation, such as integration of a new technology, while diffusion theory focuses on how
integration spreads through an organization. By examining various models of adoption and
diffusion theory, Straub concluded that “technology adoption is a complex, inherently social,
developmental process” and that “individuals construct unique (but malleable) views of
technology that influence adoption” (p. 641). His work suggests ,that in order to support teachers
in implementation of instructional technologies, cognitive, affective, and contextual factors must
be addressed (Straub, 2009).
Teachers have become prolific users of technology tools such as smart phones, Internet
search engines and social media (Project Tomorrow, 2011). Developing their own context for
technology’s application in their personnel lives and becoming more comfortable with the use of
various technologies may prove to have a positive impact on their beliefs about instructional use.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 24
Given the potential for technology to transform student-centered learning environments,
it is not surprising that teachers’ pedagogical orientation has a significant influence on whether
they will use technology in such a manner: Teachers who view themselves as co-constructors of
knowledge are much more likely to use technology in transformative ways (Ertmer et al., 2012;
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Somekh, 2008). As Somekh noted, providing access to
technology is not a means to an end; “it is teachers who change practices” (p. 452). Ertmer and
Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) echoed this view, suggesting that teachers’ beliefs are a critical factor
in whether technology implementation is transformative. The more teachers believe that
technology supports their instructional goals, the more likely they are to integrate it into their
teaching (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Within the educational context, teachers do not operate in a vacuum. Teachers’ beliefs
about technology strongly influence their implementation of innovations, but so do the beliefs of
their principals and administrators, as well as the school culture in which they work (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Somekh, 2008). Since
instructional technology is constantly changing, teachers need to feel supported in taking risks
and making mistakes as they try various approaches and tools (Somekh, 2008). Absent this type
of working environment, teachers may feel more comfortable in using technology in basic ways.
Also, if they operate within a culture where high-level technology use is the norm, they are more
likely to follow suit; if the culture is more traditional, innovative teachers may feel pressure to
blend in (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). In their study of award-winning teachers who
integrated technology in learner-centered classrooms, Ertmer et al. (2012) reported that the
majority of the teachers who had shown success in their classrooms indicated that the beliefs
held by their peers were negatively affecting schoolwide technology integration. Therefore, it is
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 25
critical that school leaders create an environment that encourages and supports collaboration,
communication, and creativity among teachers, just as teachers are encouraged to create this
learning environment among students.
Transforming Pedagogy
Given the potential for creativity and knowledge building inherent in new technologies,
there is a natural connection between emergent technologies and their use for learner-centered
practices such as PBL. While both concepts appear frequently in the literature, it is helpful to
elaborate on the characteristics of each.
Learner-Centered Instruction
There is a groundswell of support for a shift away from a one-size-fits-all model of
education, where teaching is fixed and learning is the variable, toward a model of individualized
learning where instruction is based on each student’s needs (Atkins et al., 2010; Christenson et
al., 2011; Polly & Hannafin, 2011; Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008). While there is no single definition
of learner-centered instruction, An and Reigeluth (2011) identified five common characteristics.
First, learning is personalized and customized, based on each student’s background,
skills, and interests; activities are designed to meet individual needs. Second, learner-centered
classrooms attend to the social and emotional needs of students by creating positive and
supportive learning environments. Third, rather than transmitting knowledge, teachers allow
students some degree of self-regulation so they have ownership and responsibility in driving
their learning with the support of the teacher as facilitator. Fourth, learner-centered classrooms
foster collaborative and authentic learning experiences, supporting the skills of communication,
collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. Fifth, there is a shift in emphasis from high-stakes
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 26
testing toward assessment for learning, providing valuable information to teachers and students
so that progress toward learning goals is continually monitored (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
Constructivism and PBL
PBL is a methodology rooted in the theory of constructivism. At its core, constructivist
theory suggests that knowledge is “constructed” by individuals through their personal and shared
experiences (Kemp, 2000). PBL builds on this idea by actively engaging students in intentional
knowledge construction. It is an inquiry approach in which students learn to seek information to
solve authentic problems collaboratively, utilizing available resources and tools while the teacher
acts as a guide and facilitator (Park & Ertmer, 2007; Walker et al., 2012). The process for
designing learning environments and instructional models to accomplish this task with the
integration of technology is complex and requires intentional planning (ChanLin, 2008).
Teachers may hold philosophical beliefs about the benefit of constructivism and PBL, but that
does not necessarily translate into classroom practice (An & Reigeluth, 2011). Therefore, it is
important to review the research on knowledge types that support transformative technology
integration.
The TPACK Framework
In developing a framework for the interaction between various knowledge bases
necessary to support successful integration of technology, researchers have utilized the TPACK
model (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Hofer & Swan, 2008; Walker et al., 2012). Developed by Mishra
and Koehler, TPACK is a framework that analyzes various aspects of technology integration.
Focused on representing the complexities of the relationships among components,
TPACK looks beyond CK, PK, and TK in isolation to consider PCK, TCK, TPK, and
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK; An & Reigeluth, 2011; Figure 2). By
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 27

Figure 2. The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model. From
TPACK, by TPACK.org, retrieved from from http://www.matt-koehler.com/tpack/wp-content/
uploads/TPACK-new.png
considering each aspect of TPACK, as well as how each component interacts with the others, it
becomes clear why understanding how to use technology, how to teach a concept, or how to
develop content separately is not sufficient; the interactions among all components affect
integration. “Technology integration training must help teachers develop TPACK by providing
them with subject-specific technology integration ideas and opportunities to explore technologies
in authentic teaching and learning contexts” (An & Reigeluth, 2011, p. 60). It is important to
keep TPACK in mind when considering the research on professional development that supports
technology-enhanced, learner-centered instruction.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 28
Learner-Centered Professional Development
When personal computers and other digital devices first became a part of K–12
classrooms, professional development often focused on learning how to use the tools themselves.
The next wave of professional development was geared toward improved administrative
operations, assessment and data, and communication tools (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2013). Now that powerful technologies are part of the personal and professional lives of most
educators (Project Tomorrow, 2011), professional development is moving toward learning how
to use technology to transform pedagogy in support of learner-centered practices (Ertmer et al.,
2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Somekh, 2008). With these increasingly complex
demands on teachers comes a need for professional development that moves beyond the “short,
fragmented, and episodic workshops that offer little opportunity to integrate learning into
practice” (USDE, 2010, p. 39). Instead, along with the call for learner-centered classrooms, there
is a parallel demand for learner-centered staff development (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Polly &
Hannafin, 2011; Somekh, 2008).
Researchers recognize that it is the individual teacher’s change in practices that marks
successful implementation of a new concept or idea, so staff development related to integration
of instructional technology should be learner centered (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013;
Somekh, 2008; Straub, 2009; Walker et al., 2012). “Educators must be more than information
experts; they must be collaborators in learning, seeking new knowledge and constantly acquiring
new skills alongside their students” (Atkins et al., 2010, p. 1). Polly and Hannafin (2011)
identified six characteristics of leaner-centered staff development: student focused, reflective,
teacher owned, content and theory laden, collaborative, and comprehensive. The National
Educational Technology Plan concurs that the individual educator’s needs should be considered:
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 29
“Professional learning should support and develop educators’ identities as fluent users of
advanced technology, creative and collaborative problem-solvers, and adaptive, socially aware
experts” (Atkins et al., 2010, p. 44). Research related to learner-centered professional
development has included specific feedback from teachers.
An and Reigeluth (2011) found that teachers had specific recommendations for improved
professional development. They preferred hands-on practice that was content specific and
incorporated knowledge and modeling of learner-centered strategies (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
Teachers who were inclined to constructivist practices found that instructional technology
supported their style; however, even without a constructivist orientation, teachers who were
shown how to incorporate technology in PBL increased their use (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).
When professional development is focused on PBL and specifically design oriented so that
teachers learn how to create problem-based lessons, there is a greater likelihood that they will
implement lessons that incorporate their new learning (Walker et al., 2012).
Since technology is constantly evolving, integration can leave some teachers feeling like
perpetual novices (Somekh, 2008). Consequently, researchers suggest that staff development
should build a sense of self-efficacy and should incorporate both modeling and opportunities for
practice (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Hew and Brush (2007) recommended staff
development that combines a focus on technology skills, technology-supported pedagogy, and
technology-related classroom management that is hands on and provides “just-in-time” learning
based on individual teachers’ needs. Ideally, training would also include ongoing support,
preferably at the classroom level (Polly & Hannafin, 2011), advancing the concept of learner-
centered professional development.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 30
The need for focused professional development related to instructional uses of emerging
technologies is important for preservice teachers, as well. While young teacher candidates may
have grown up in a technology-rich environment and be extremely comfortable with its use in
their personal lives, this familiarity does not necessarily translate into an understanding of how to
leverage these tools in the classroom (Atkins et al., 2010). In their research on preservice
technology education, Brush, Glazewski, and Hew (2008) found that even young preservice
teachers had specific learning needs related to instructional technologies: prerequisite skills for
commonly used instructional technology, specific instruction on less commonly used
technologies, overcoming barriers to implementation, and effective practices. Whether the
audience is new or experienced teachers, staff development, like classroom instruction, should be
learner centered and research based if the intention is to transform pedagogy.
Benefits of Teachers Embracing Technology
Few would argue that it makes sense to educate students in much the same way as they
were educated 50 years ago. However, that is the state of education in many K–12 classrooms
throughout the United States. In response, educators and researchers are calling for integration of
instructional technologies in ways that transform education, providing students with learner-
centered educational experiences that could not have existed without harnessing the power of
technology (Atkins et al., 2010; Christensen et al., 2011; Hokanson & Hooper, 2004; Reigeluth
& Duffy, 2008; Somekh, 2008). With the CCSS focus on 21st-century skills of communication,
collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking and the corresponding focus on PBL and learner-
centered classrooms, it is important to consider the benefits of these significant instructional
shifts.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 31
The USDE released its draft of the National Education Technology Plan in 2010. The
plan called for significant changes in use of powerful technology because of the potential
benefits to students.
Education is the key to America’s growth and prosperity and to our ability to compete in
the global economy. It is the path to good jobs and higher earning power for Americans.
It is necessary for our democracy to work. (Atkins et al., 2010, p. v)
Technology is addressed directly in the plan:
Just as technology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and work, we
must leverage it to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences, content and
resources, and assessments that measure student achievement in more complete,
authentic, and meaningful ways. Technology-based learning and assessment systems will
be pivotal in improving student learning and generating data that can be used to
continuously improve the education system at all levels. (Atkins et al., 2010, p. v)
This national agenda for harnessing the benefits of technology includes the idea that technology
potentially increases student motivation, learning, and achievement (Atkins et al., 2010).
Effective use of educational technology can improve achievement scores, enhance
students’ creativity and problem solving, and increase motivation (Hew & Brush, 2007). When
coupled with learner-centered classrooms and PBL, the results are even more promising. A meta-
analysis of research on PBL showed that students retained information long term, improved their
performance, and expressed higher levels of satisfaction; learner-centered classrooms improve
content knowledge and preparation for real-world application of skills (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) found compelling results for at-risk students, noting that
significant improvements in both achievement and engagement occur when at-risk students are
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 32
taught in interactive, learner-centered, and engaging environments. To achieve these outcomes,
the focus on technology in the classroom should be on a shift in pedagogy that embraces critical
thinking and problem solving, rather than on the technology itself (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2013).
Christensen et al. (2011) applied research related to disruptive innovation to the
classroom and school settings. They saw the transformational potential of blended online
learning and discussed its benefits for students: “Technological improvements that make learning
more engaging; research advances that enable the design of student-centric software appropriate
to each individual learner” (p. 102). They predicted that, by 2021, student-centered online
courses will account for 50% of secondary students’ coursework. To understand the benefits of
transformational technology, specific examples follow.
Transformative Practices in Action
While the true transformative potential of powerful instructional technologies has yet to
be realized, there are isolated examples of technology as transformative tools in student-centered
learning (Christensen et al., 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Somekh, 2008).
Somekh (2008) offered three examples of studies that demonstrated possible
transformative pedagogies with technology when schools engaged in an external initiative: an
Apple computer initiative in the United States, an ICT-initiated development in Norway, and the
Enlaces Initiative in Chile. In all three cases, common factors led to successful implementation
of student-centered PBL through technology integration; schools were well equipped, teachers
and students developed high levels of competency, teachers were supported by facilitators, and
roles between teachers and students evolved so that students had true agency (Somekh, 2008).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 33
ChanLin (2008) studied PBL in a science camp setting with fifth graders in Taiwan.
ChanLin observed constructivism in action as students developed new knowledge through
exploration and investigation. Teachers and students exchanged ideas to develop shared
understanding and teachers coached students toward metacognition as students constructed their
own knowledge. While the technology component of the project (webpage development) was
sometimes frustrating, it required an additional level of metacognition and organization that
ultimately contributed to deeper understanding. All participants completed their projects
successfully (ChanLin, 2008).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2014) cited several examples of individual teachers who had
found success in using technology in learner-centered classrooms with at-risk students. In one
example she noted that a high school teacher asked students to research, plan, develop, and
publish websites to illustrate their work related to the Holocaust. The students, who had not
always experienced school success, demonstrated high rates of motivation and engagement with
the task. In another example, at-risk high school students benefited from interactive mathematics
simulations that provided hands-on opportunities and real-world applications without leaving the
classroom. Students responded positively to the complex demands of the tasks and opportunities
to collaborate (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). Given the large number of at-risk students in K–
12 schools, it is significant to note the positive gains found in most recent publications.
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) studied 12 exemplary technology-using educators
and noted that the three teachers who held the most learner-centered views created the most
authentic and learner-centered instructional environments. The three teachers shared similar
insights, stating that the technology did not change their practices but the changing needs of their
21st-century learners had caused them to refine their teaching philosophy and to learn how best
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 34
to leverage the technologies to accomplish their goals (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013).
“These teachers have adopted attitudes and beliefs that support transformative approaches to
teaching and learning . . . beyond simply understanding what technology could do, to
understanding and embracing 21st-century pedagogies that leverage the technology to facilitate
authentic student learning” (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013, p. 178).
Conclusion
While personal computers, web-based resources, and other instructional technologies
have had a presence in K–12 education in the past 3 decades, a critical juncture has been reached
where widespread classroom and personal access demand a transformation in the instructional
model. It is clear that the sit-and-get, test-and-sort, factory model of education is falling short of
preparing students for a 21st-century knowledge-based workforce. There is sufficient evidence to
suggest that learner-centered classrooms that focus on PBL utilizing innovative technologies
hold promise for preparing students.
Beyond the focus of individual classrooms, the next generation of school-wide and
district-wide initiatives such as one-to-one device programs (e.g., iPads, NetBooks,
ChromeBooks), BYOD, and blended online learning models are now extant. As SBAC and
NextGeneration national online adaptive testing replace traditional multiple choice testing to
assess and compare student learning, schools and districts will be more motivated than ever to
harness the powerful instructional technologies available to support student learning and mastery
of the four CCSS components: collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity.
Within the literature, studies have examined individual teachers’ behaviors, beliefs, and
practices that influenced their implementation of technology in their classrooms. The present
study builds on that research by examining the interactive influences of an entire school. The
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 35
study investigated the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating and implementing
technology in curriculum and instruction. By conducting a case study of a school that is
transforming education with the support of technology, the research provides insight for other
schools facing similar educational challenges who might learn from a school that is farther along
in the implementation of technology.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 36
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This study analyzed the implementation of instructional technology in a K–12 setting and
its impact on teaching and learning. The purpose of the study was to examine a school that
utilizes technology to transform the learning experience for teachers and students. Based on an
analysis of existing research in the field, four research questions guided the study:
1. How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
2. To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
In order to address these research questions, a qualitative case study was developed. The
case study utilized interviews, observations, surveys, and document review to explore the ways
in which School X has implemented instructional technology to transform teaching and learning.
While quantitative studies enable researchers to establish causal relationships between variables,
qualitative studies assist researchers in understanding and explaining what is occurring within a
particular setting. Qualitative research is characterized by a focus on meaning and understanding,
using the researcher as an instrument, utilizing an inductive process, and creating a rich
description of the phenomenon being studied (Merriam, 2009).
Transformational technology practices are a relatively new phenomenon in the world of
K–12 education. As such, research on various aspects of transformational practices is still
relatively young. This case study examined the ways in which technology can be transformative.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 37
In order to analyze transformative technology practices, the SAMR framework provided a
construct for studying four levels of implementation. At the substitution level, technology is
substituted for an existing practice to accomplish a task with no meaningful improvement. The
augmentation level describes uses of technology that improve the way something was done
previously without the aid of technology. Both the substitution and augmentation levels are
considered enhancements under the SAMR model. Transformations, according to the SAMR
model, include the levels of modifications and redefinition. Modifications are uses of technology
that allow a task to be significantly redesigned because of technology. Redefinition describes the
use of instructional technology to accomplish a task that would have been impossible without the
technology (Puentadura, 2014). While the potential for technology to contribute to
transformational educational practices is well documented, most uses of technology in K–12
settings have replicated existing practices with new tools (Ertner & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013;
Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Somekh, 2008; USDE, 2010). Put another way, using the language of
SAMR, there are far more instances of enhancement practices than transformative practices. The
decision to conduct a qualitative study was matched to the topic; the inductive nature of a
qualitative study was best suited to the investigation of an emerging phenomenon (Merriam,
2009), and transformational instructional technology is in an emergent stage.
Sample and Population
Most schools implement instructional technology to some extent. However, for the
purposes of this study, it was important to analyze a school that was utilizing instructional
technology in transformative ways; therefore, purposeful sampling was used. The purposeful
sampling focused on what Patton (2002) referred to as extreme or deviant case sampling, where
the researcher selects the sample because it is an exceptional example of the phenomenon being
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 38
studied. A review of existing research included several studies that focused on exceptional
teachers as the unit of analysis. This study utilized an exceptional school as the unit of analysis,
where the whole school was engaged in supporting the implementation of technology in
transformative ways.
Since this study was completed as part of research by a thematic dissertation group of 10
researchers focused on the same research design and questions but conducting individual studies
at 10 sites, the following list of selection criteria was developed collaboratively: (a) a public,
private, or charter school operating in an urban K–12 system; (b) a school that is actively
implementing instructional technology in a significant way; (c) a school in which the vision,
mission, school profile, and/or principal’s message demonstrates that the site embraces
instructional technology; and (d) evidence of achievement. Beyond the general criteria agreed
upon by the thematic group, this particular study specifically selected a site that had a
representative sample of students from lower socio-economic households, English learners,
students with disabilities, and students from diverse backgrounds. These additional criteria were
important because they are part of the fabric of K–12 urban education and the results are
intended to be informative across diverse educational settings.
Once the group criteria for site selection were established, the search for a specific site
became the focus. School X is located in California and was selected because it met all selection
criteria. It is a public middle school serving sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students. It is part
of a district that has secured bond funding for a district-wide technology initiative that includes
an articulated plan for technology transformation. School X has a strong technology presence,
including iPads for every student. School X is also a high-achieving Title I school, serving a
diverse population of middle school students.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 39
The case study included interviews with a district administrator, the principal, a digital
literacy coach, and a representative sample of instructional staff. In addition, all instructional
staff were given the opportunity to complete a survey, and observations were conducted in
classrooms during several visits. Finally, the researcher collected a variety of documents to
support the research, including the Single Plan for Student Achievement, demographic and test
data, web-based information, and other documents.
Instrumentation
Interviews provide the qualitative researcher with an understanding of the participants’
thought processes. By learning participants’ thoughts on the topic of study, the researcher
collects information about the participants’ experiences with the focus of the study (Merriam,
2009). The research focused on how School X utilized instructional technology to transform
teaching and learning. The semistructured interview protocol provided the instructional staff with
a forum to explain their thinking, elaborate on their experiences, and clarify their reasoning. At
the same time, conducting multiple interviews using a set of open-ended but identical questions
within the semistructured interview protocol allowed the researcher to identify trends and
patterns to address the research questions (Merriam, 2009). Table 1 shows the relationships
between the research questions and the interview questions.
While interviews allow researchers to understand their participants’ thought processes,
observations enable researchers to document participant behaviors related to the topic being
researched. Observations provide a first-hand account of the phenomenon being studied and
place researchers within the context of the phenomenon, an important component of qualitative
research (Merriam, 2009). For this particular study, observations provided the researcher the
opportunity to record the dynamic uses of instructional technology in classroom settings. An
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 40
Table 1

Alignment of Research Questions and Interview Questions

Research question Interview question

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

How would you describe the use of technology in your
classroom?
How are students using instructional technology in the
classroom?
What are some instructional strategies that technology can
help in differentiating instruction for diverse students?
What technology device is used to assist in student
motivation? How do you know?
What applications and/or software programs are used to
support student learning?
RQ2: What factors do educators
attribute their knowledge of
skills and pedagogy to utilize
technology as an instructional
tool?
To what do you attribute your background knowledge of
technology?
How do you continue to acquire knowledge of technology
device use?
How did you learn to integrate technology in your instruction?
How do you determine what technology to use with your
students?
RQ3: In what ways are
educators at School X provided
support for technology
integration and implementation?

How does the school support and train teachers to use
technology devices and applications?
How does the school make technology accessible to teachers?
In what ways are teachers provided support and/or
informational resources regarding integrating technology in
the curriculum?
What are some obstacles in implementing technology in
student learning?
RQ4: What are educators’
beliefs about technology
integration and implementation
at School X?

How do you feel about the use of technology?
What do you believe are the benefits of technology in the
classroom?
Some people say technology takes too much time, what would
you say to this?
What advice would you give a novice teacher in the inclusion
of technology in their classroom?
What is your favorite technology to use while teaching? Why?

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 41
observation protocol was developed collaboratively by the thematic dissertation group; it
included a list of specific indicators of observable integration of instructional technology that
allowed for comparisons across instructional environments. The protocol also included open-
ended data collection so the researcher could capture use of instructional technology for teaching
and learning as it unfolded.
In conjunction with other methods of data collection, Likert-type scale surveys provide
the qualitative researcher with access to quantifiable data to support research findings. A survey
instrument was developed collaboratively with members of the thematic group to capture data on
various aspects of technology implementation. It included a 4-point Likert-type scale with the
following responses choices: Almost Always, Most of the Time, Sometimes, and Rarely/Never.
The survey intentionally avoided the extremes of Always and Never to eliminate absolutes and
took the form of forced choice because it lacked a neutral response. While sometimes frustrating
to the respondent, the intention of the forced-response scale is to elicit accurate positive or
negative responses to the items (Fink, 2012).
Along with the interactive data collection conducted through interviews, observations,
and surveys, document review is an increasingly important qualitative tool as technology has
changed the way archival data are stored and made available. With an emphasis on showcasing
practices, accountability, and transparency, more artifacts are available through various state,
district, and school websites. This rich source of data was mined to analyze content regarding
School X’s mission, vision, goals, demographics, and achievement, among other data. Used in
conjunction, interviews, surveys, observations, and document review allowed the researcher to
triangulate collected data, which assisted in substantiating findings (Merriam, 2009). In
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 42
combination, these data sources illuminated the phenomenon of transformative technology
practices at School X.
Data Collection
In qualitative research, the data collection process may be informed by the data collected
along the way, and a researcher should be prepared to adapt the process as needed (Maxwell,
2012; Merriam, 2009). Since this study looked at the emerging phenomenon of transformative
practices of instructional technology implementation, the approach to data collection included an
action plan but adjustments to the approach were made as data were collected. Data collection
included interviews, observations, surveys, and document review.
At the outset, interviews were conducted with the Assistant Superintendent of School
District X, who is most closely involved with implementation of the technology plan in the
district. This interview was open ended and primarily used to build the researcher’s
understanding of the context, characteristics, vision, background, and implementation of
technology in the district where School X is located (Appendix A). An initial visit and
unstructured initial interview with the Principal of School X allowed the researcher to develop
background knowledge of the school. Visiting the core instructional classrooms with the
Principal on two occasions allowed the researcher to observe use of technology throughout the
school. After an initial introduction to the staff at a meeting, the Principal recommended a
representative sample of instructional staff for follow-up interviews. Those staff members were
contacted via email. Staff members who were interested in participating in the formal
observation and interview portions of the study responded directly to the researcher; each was
interviewed and observed individually. All participants were offered an advance copy of the
interview questions via email before the actual interview. The interviews took place prior to or
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 43
after the observations, depending on the schedule that worked best for each participant. Because
there would be access to participants after the initial interview and observation, additional data
could be collected if further information or clarification became necessary. Interviews were
conducted in the participants’ setting (classroom, laboratory, or office). The interviews were
digitally recorded and fully transcribed, with participant identifiers removed.
To complement the interview data, observation data were collected in multiple settings at
School X, including classrooms, a staff meeting, and a science laboratory. Preliminary field
notes were recorded during each observation and expanded immediately afterward. Depending
on the nature of the data, the participants occasionally provided further explanations for the
occurrences that were recorded. The data were entered into a matrix that was developed to
organize the types of technology-enhanced instructional activities that occurred in each
observation. A copy of the observation protocol is included in Appendix B.
Survey data were added to interview and observation data to continue to build an
understanding of the phenomenon. After an introduction by the Principal during a staff meeting,
a survey was given to all instructional staff to be completed at their convenience. Participants
were ensured of anonymity in their responses to encourage them to feel confident in answering
openly. Survey questions (Appendix C) were designed collaboratively by the thematic group to
gather data for each of the research questions.
To complete the picture, documents were collected and reviewed to support triangulation
of the interview, observation, and survey data. The document review included website
information, press releases, newspaper articles, video links, photographic data, and other written
evidence of technology practices, such as the school plan. A sample of the documents collected
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 44
appears in Appendix D. This triangulation of data supported the reliability of evidence that was
used to draw conclusions related to the research questions (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009).
Data Analysis
Although there may have been elements of constant comparative, grounded theory, or
phenomenological methodology, the scope of this case study most closely resembled what
Merriam (2009) referred to as a basic qualitative study. The most common type of study in
education, the basic qualitative study uses observations, interviews, surveys, and document
review to understand recurring patterns that lend meaning to the data and become the findings of
the study (Merriam, 2009). In this case study, instructional staff were interviewed, observed, and
surveyed to record the ways in which they implement transformative instructional practices using
technology. Document review provided further data for the study.
As with many qualitative studies, data analysis began during the data collection phase.
Using the SAMR model to categorize the implementation of instructional technology into levels
of use, initial categorization occurred during observations and document review as examples of
the levels were coded S, A, M, or R. As interview transcriptions and survey data became
available, the coding continued. Data with a code of M for modification or R for redefinition
were considered examples of transformative practices. These data were analyzed to discern
themes and trends that contributed to an understanding of the phenomenon being studied.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of the study was to examine a school that utilizes technology to transform
the learning experience for teachers and students and enhance the 21st-century skills of
collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity. Since transformative technology
implementation is a relatively new phenomenon, a qualitative case study provided a rich
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 45
description of the phenomenon and added to the body of research by using an exceptional school
as the unit of analysis. Utilizing the SAMR model to identify practices that were transformative
rather than enhancements, data from interviews, observations, surveys, and document review
were analyzed to highlight themes and trends. A purposeful sample methodology highlighted a
particular school where transformational practices were documented. By adding to the body of
research by nine additional thematic dissertation group members, trends across studies may
provide additional insight.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 46
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
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. In order to study
the phenomenon of transformational technology at the school-wide level, a case study was
conducted at School X. The case study included an interview with the Assistant Superintendent
who oversees educational technology in District X, the site Principal, a Digital Literacy Coach
(DLC), and five classroom teachers. The study also included observations of a variety of
classrooms during multiple visits, an observation of a staff meeting, and two walk-throughs with
the Principal. A 21-item Likert-type scale survey was completed by 19 teachers at the site (47%
participation rate). A document review included district- and site-level information that
highlighted use of instructional technology, as well as data on achievement, demographics, and
district and school goals and plans.
The study was informed by the SAMR model of technology integration that looks at four
levels of implementation. Substitution (S) is the use of technology to complete a task with no
noticeable improvement. Augmentation (A) is the use of technology to improve the way in
which a task is completed. Modification (M) is the term applied to a task that can be redesigned
because of technology. Redefinition (R) is the term used to describe the use of instructional
technology to do something that could not have been done without the technology. The SAMR
model identifies modification and redefinition levels of use as meeting the criteria to be
considered transformational (Puentadura, 2014).
In addition to the SAMR model, the study was informed by the TPACK model. The
TPACK model looks at the interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.
Usually presented as a Venn diagram, the model looks at the intersection of the three types of
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 47
knowledge required for effective technology integration: knowledge of the use of technology to
improve teaching and learning, knowledge of the specific subject area content to be taught, and
an understanding of the pedagogical processes of teaching that best support learning in a given
context (An & Reigeluth, 2011). The TPACK lens allowed the case study data to be analyzed
from a teacher’s knowledge perspective. The following sections report the findings of the study
for each of four research questions.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to
support students’ learning?” Based on the data collected through surveys, observations,
interviews, and document review, the integration of technology at School X is extensive and
crosses grade levels, subject areas, and a diverse teaching staff. Of the teachers who participated
in the survey, 89% stated that their instruction involved the use of technology most of the time or
almost always. Two thirds of the teachers surveyed reported that their lessons encouraged
creativity and innovation through students’ use of technology. Table 2 summarizes the responses
to items related to this research question.
Access to and use of instructional technology was clearly evident during classroom visits
and observations. In addition to the schoolwide ratio of 1:1 iPads for students, each academic
classroom was outfitted with an interactive SmartBoard, a projector, and a document camera that
allowed teachers to project their computer screen or other items such as documents and
manipulatives on the wall at the front of the class. Teachers also had a voice amplification device
that allowed their voices to be heard equally throughout the classroom, a desktop computer, and
an iPad for their use.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 48
Table 2

Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 1 (Student Learning) (N = 18)

1 2 3 4
Rarely Most of Almost
Survey item or never Sometimes the time always

My instruction involves use of
technology.
0.0% 11.1% 44.4% 44.4%
My lessons encourage creativity and
innovation through student use of
technology.
0.0% 33.3% 38.9% 27.8%
My lessons embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem-
solving through student use of
technology
0.0% 27.8% 33.3% 38.9%
My lessons embed student use of
technology in the classroom.
0.0% 22.2% 33.3% 44.4%
My lessons embed student use of
technology outside of the classroom.
11.1% 38.9% 22.2% 27.8%
Students are encouraged to work
collaboratively with other students while
using technology.
0.0% 33.3% 44.4% 22.2%
Professional development (PD) sessions
have improved my use of technology in
the classroom.
0.0% 27.8% 44.4% 27.8%
I use technology to differentiate
instruction.
5.6% 27.8% 33.3% 33.3%

During each of the site visits, there was strong evidence of technology integration, with
evidence of active use of technology in 11 or 14 classrooms visited. In one Core classroom
(English/social studies), students had collaboratively created digital projects using iMovie that
taught their peers about a particular African culture. On the day of the visit, students were trading
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 49
their presentations with the other groups in a jig-saw activity, learning the content presented by
the other groups, and completing a graphic organizer and critique. In another class, students were
divided into two teams and were using a coding program on the iPad to move robots along a
track that was taped to the carpet. All students were actively engaged, providing suggestions for
adjustments based on trial and error, estimation, and prediction. The Principal explained that this
was an English language development support class for students at the beginning, early
intermediate, and intermediate stages of language acquisition. The coding activity provided an
authentic opportunity for academic language development. In a mathematics class, students were
helping one another to create cities on a coordinate plane, using a graphing program. Two
classrooms were engaged in activities in Google Classroom. The types of instructional activities
seen during informal classroom visits were also observed during more formal observations.
During all observations, evidence and examples of transformational practices were found.
In one science class, students were creating YouTube tutorials of Archimedes’s principle.
Through trial and error, groups of students created tin foil boats to carry pennies, seeing who
could create the boat that could carry the most pennies in the water. Their practice with
buoyancy and displacement was documented by pictures, video, and narration of the adjustments
that they made to their boats to allow them to carry heavier loads. In two classes, students were
working on activities in digital notebooks. This included accessing assignments, videos, and
images from Haiku, adding notes and responses through text and images, and giving and
receiving feedback. In another class, students were creating arcade games from cardboard, based
on a popular YouTube video called Cain’s Arcade. They documented their design process on a
WikiPage, including a picture of their original sketch, their final product, and a content block
explaining the evolution of their creation. A mathematics class used tangram manipulatives and
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 50
the PearDeck application to solve and share responses to a series of equations solved in teams
and shared virtually. The teacher then created new assignments based on student responses to
provide further instruction and practice in areas of need.
During interviews, educators expanded on implementation of instructional technology at
School X. It was clear during the interviews and observations that the focus in the school was on
learning and that technology was a tool to enhance the learning experience. The Assistant
Superintendent explained, “[The bond-funded technology initiative] has never been about
technology in the classroom: It is a learning initiative, a true learning transformation.” In sharing
about the school, the Principal explained, “The use of technology at this point in time is an
underlying ingredient of most of what we do, of 80% of what we do in our core academic classes
. . . [teachers] are using it in a variety of ways, both involving rigor and engagement.” He cited
an example of transformational technology in which science students used an application to build
paper models of elements. Then, using the application on the iPad, students pointed to their
element and it appeared in 3D; then they combined elements and watched the chemical reaction
on the screen. The Principal noted that the level of engagement and enthusiasm was very high. A
DLC assigned to the school stated that any use of technology must be meaningful and focused on
capturing student thinking.
Teachers’ responses echoed those reported above. In responding to how technology
supports student learning, several teachers noted the ability to differentiate and provide students
with choice. One teacher uses a 10-2 model to deliver content. She teaches students for no more
than 10 minutes at a time, then gives them 2 minutes to record a recap of that portion of the
lesson. She noticed that her English learners often went home and reviewed content repeatedly
until they captured key ideas to their satisfaction in their digital notebooks. She noted, “I’ve seen
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 51
the inside bedroom of almost all of my kids [on video] because they’ll go home and [if] they
don’t like the way it sounds in school, they’ll go home and do it again.” Teachers mentioned the
ability to differentiate text complexity related to the same content with programs such as
Actively Learn: “With those programs, you can scaffold not only the level of the text, but also
we’re chunking the information which makes it easier for them to read.” A mathematics teacher
noted that the ability to use appropriate tools strategically is one of the mathematical practices of
CCSS and she noted a shift in her students’ ability to demonstrate this. As she introduced more
tools, applications, and digital manipulatives, she noticed that her students chose appropriate
tools for their needs when approaching problems without her telling them which specific tool to
use. Differentiation supported by technology creates a more personalized educational experience,
and observations, interviews, and surveys all indicated a high level of technology use at
School X.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their
knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an
instructional tool?” In researching the factors that teachers at School X cited as supporting their
knowledge development, one factor that was mentioned in every interview was the DLC. District
X is in its third year of a bond-funded learning initiative that includes district-wide support for
the implementation of technology. One component of that initiative is the deployment of content-
area-specific DLCs. Teachers apply to be fellows and, if accepted, receive support services from
a DLC who supports 8 to 13 teachers each year. They utilize a model of co-planning a
technology-enhanced lesson, observation of the lesson (which may include digital recording),
and then debriefing and reflecting on the lesson in anticipation of the next cycle. The DLCs
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 52
provide both school-wide training and individualized staff development geared to each fellow’s
needs and knowledge base. The principal and every teacher who was interviewed mentioned that
the DLCs were a key factor in developing a knowledge base of technology skills and pedagogy.
One teacher explained,
Last year, I had a DLC in the classroom. I was kind of wary about using the iPads
because we don’t have a program where I can monitor what they’re doing on their iPads.
I was nervous about it but he helped me out of that shell . . . . it opened my eyes to more
technology-based learning.
In addition to DLCs, teachers acknowledged other factors.
In addition to specific support by the school or district, teachers mentioned a variety of
self-initiated strategies for developing their knowledge and skills. Two teachers were pursuing a
Master of Arts degree in educational technology; both mentioned that their program was
supporting their knowledge acquisition. Other sources mentioned by teachers included learning
by trial and error, through exploration, from fellow teachers, and from YouTube, blogs,
webinars, Twitter, and online educational forums. That spirit of curiosity and collaboration was
captured in an exchange between a master teacher and his student teacher. The student teacher
had shared that she had learned more from being in his class and seeing technology in action
than she had in her program. He responded,
I think [his student teacher’s] generation is a little more intuitive about things so I’ll show
her a program and then she’ll show me a couple of more things and then we give it to the
kids and then the kids show us even more than both of us know.
This spirit of continuing to evolve and develop skills was also evident in the survey data.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 53
Survey data indicated that two thirds of the respondents indicated that they actively
pursue new technology innovations most of the time or almost always. More than 86% of the
respondents reported incorporating their skills into lesson presentation, as well as 80% in
assessment of student learning. These figures represent a critical mass of staff members who
pursue an understanding of technology and use that understanding for implementation. Table 3
summarizes the responses to items related to this research question. While the research question
focused on ways in which teachers develop their knowledge, the study also explored specific
supports for technology implementation.
Table 3

Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 2 (Technology Skills) (N = 15)

1 2 3 4
Rarely Most of Almost
Survey item or never Sometimes the time always

I use technology daily in a variety of
ways to present lessons.
13.3% 46.7% 40.0%
I use technology in a variety of ways to
assess student learning.
20.0% 46.7% 33.3%
I go out of my way to stay current on the
new innovations with technology.
6.7% 26.7% 33.3% 33.3%

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support
for technology integration and implementation?” The survey data indicated that 100% of the
respondents said that the use of technology is encouraged and promoted at the school and is a
part of the school culture most of the time or almost always (Table 4). So how do those data
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 54
Table 4

Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 3 (Technology Support) (N = 15)

1 2 3 4
Rarely Most of Almost
Survey item or never Sometimes the time always

Use of technology is encouraged and
promoted at my school.
0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0%
IT support staff is available to assist
when needed.
13.3% 26.7% 40.0% 20.0%
A mentor is available to support
technology integration.
6.7% 20.0% 33.3% 40.0%
Use of instructional technology is a
component of my school’s culture.
0.0% 0.0% 46.7% 53.3%
Teachers are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional
technology.
0.0% 33.3% 26.7% 40.0%

translate into technology support? In addition to the role of the DLC mentioned previously,
support for technology integration was evident in a variety of data sources. A document review
indicated that support for staff development was part of all school goals, including specific goals
around the support of instructional technology. All teachers had a SmartBoard, a desktop
computer, a document camera, a projector, a voice amplification system, a teacher iPad, and
individual student iPads. District X holds summer institutes for staff development related to
technology that are grade level or content specific; attendance is voluntary but widespread. A
spring technology conference is held where staff members provide training and demonstrations
for attendees district wide. Several participants mentioned site-level Tech Tuesdays—staff
development that was initially led by the DLC but is now being taken over by Fellows on the site
who have previously worked with a DLC. Teacher interviews revealed that the teachers were
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 55
highly collaborative. “A lot of it is very organic,” shared one teacher. “If somebody is doing
something that you need, then you will use it. I learned [Actively Learn] from a colleague, and I
was like, ‘Oh, that is exactly what I need.’” Teachers also shared that staff development for
technology is embedded in staff meetings. There was strong evidence of staff members working
as a professional learning community. As one teacher shared, “I think that we’ve become teacher
experts on campus.” He named a variety of teachers who were willing to share their expertise
with various programs. Speaking of one colleague who helps others with Verso, he stated “I even
went over and watched her do it. I did it with one class and it went okay, but I wanted to see
what the lesson was like and how they did it and then I learned all of the extra settings.” Support
was evident at the site and district levels. “The school and the district have been really supportive
in the technology push,” said one participant, “Not only have they been saying we want you to
use technology but they’ve made it very easy for us to use technology.” Another shared, “I love
teaching in a district that supports us and provides us with what we need to integrate technology
effectively.”
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration
and implementation at “School X”? The review of literature indicated that teachers’ beliefs have
a significant impact on implementation. At School X, there is a critical mass of teachers with
strong beliefs about the value of technology in the classroom. All respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the statements “I support the use of technology in the classroom” and “Instructional
technology has a positive impact on student learning” (Table 5).
One teacher shared, “[Technology] has changed the way I teach, totally, completely. . . . I
feel like it gets them ready for the real world because there’s so much technology out there
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 56
Table 5

Survey Responses to Items Related to Research Question 4 (Technology Beliefs) (N = 15)

1 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
Survey item disagree Disagree Agree agree

I support the use of technology in the
classroom.
0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 73.3%
Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning. (N =14)
0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4%
Technology is an important part of
teaching and learning.
0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 71.4%
My classroom is student centered. 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0%
My students are empowered to be
responsible for their own learning.
0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7%

already.” Since School X is a Title I school, serving a significant population of low-income
students, one teacher pointed out that providing iPads to students and actively using the devices
daily levels the playing field for students. In describing her use of a collage application that
allows students to create digital displays of their learning, she said, “What’s neat is, if they all
have an iPad, then they all basically have the same tool. It’s not like you’re sending a kid home
who doesn’t have glitter and paper. They have the same access to the same tech.” Another
teacher paraphrased a belief that she had internalized from a trainer:
The technology train is coming, you can either stand on the platform or get on [board],
but either way it is going to keep going, I always kept that in mind. It’s not going away,
we need to jump with it, and go on moving forward.
The sense that teachers shared a belief in the power of instructional technology was evident in
interviews, observations, and survey data.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 57
SAMR and TPACK
In analyzing the data from the various sources, the SAMR and TPACK lenses provided
clarity. In the examples of how technology is used at School X, teachers were routinely using
technology at the transformative level. Students were collaborating, communicating, creating,
and thinking critically in lessons that utilized technology to modify (M) or redesign (R) the type
of work in which they were engaged. Students were involved in learning that was fundamentally
different because of the way in which technology was used. Ultimately, there was a focus on
capturing student thinking through interactive dialogue, videos, images, and artifacts that were
created through collaboration and shared and evaluated to move students forward. As one teacher
said, “I think it really helped . . . understanding the SAMR model because I’m not a big fan of
just using tech just to use tech. I’d like to use tech to do things differently.” By applying the
SAMR lens to School X, it is clear that teaching and learning has moved beyond basic
substitution and more efficient augmentation to creating opportunities for students to use
technology to redefine learning tasks. Just as the SAMR model provides a lens through which
student use of technology can be analyzed, TPACK offers a way to consider the teacher’s
knowledge of the integration of instructional technology.
At School X, staff development and support for technology focus on balancing each of
the knowledge domains: technology, pedagogy, and content area knowledge. The DLC model
uses subject-area specialists who are selected for their strong pedagogy and technology skills to
provide coaching for interested peers who are willing to approach lesson development from all
three knowledge bases. The model moves away from traditional technology training that focuses
on developing teacher knowledge of the use of devices and programs and incorporates a focus on
designing lessons that teach the content with strong technology-enhanced pedagogy. As the
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 58
Assistant Superintendent, Principal, and DLC explained, School X is part of a learning initiative
rather than a technology initiative, and the power of TPACK is evident in the implementation.
Culture at School X
After considering the data and evidence collected throughout the case study from a
variety of sources, certain themes appeared to describe the culture at School X.
A Culture Where One Size Does Not Fit All
It is clear that there is an articulated plan and structure to the roll-out of instructional
technology in District X, but there is also a high level of site autonomy. The district has a
uniform standard regarding what technology is in place in each classroom, what devices are
available for elementary, middle, and high school, and a plan to continually improve the
infrastructure to ensure adequate band width, wireless access, and so forth. The district provides
staff development for administrators and teachers through training sessions and use of DLCs.
However, within that framework, there is a culture of autonomy as to how instructional
technology is implemented at School X. The Assistant Superintendent explained that the DLCs
collaborate to provide information to schools but that “the other way it happens is absolutely
from the ground up. Teachers are getting savvier and smarter, and knowing what to research.”
Similarly, School X has a well-articulated plan for student learning; however, teachers have a
great deal of autonomy in deciding how to reach student goals with the support of technology.
Teachers at School X select programs and applications that meet their students’ needs. In
determining which technology to implement, the principal explained, “Most of it is what the
teachers find they are being successful with . . . . there is a lot of freedom of choice in what the
teachers use.” An individual teacher might find a particular program useful and share it with his
or her team, or introduce it to the staff at a Tech Tuesday event or staff meeting. If other teachers
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 59
or departments are interested in trying the program, they have the Principal’s support. As long as
the program or application supports student learning and school goals, the district also supports
its use. As one teacher shared, “Any apps that we think we need, that will be student driven, all
we have to do is ask.” An idea from one site might spread to teachers at another site through
shared DLCs. This culture of autonomy and support is important when teachers are being asked
to try something new and possibly outside their comfort zone.
A Culture That Supports Exploration and Risk Taking
The culture of autonomy, the one-size-does-not-fit-all implementation at School X, leads
to another aspect of culture: the spirit of trial and error and risk taking that is evident at the
school. When teachers talked about implementation of instructional technology at School X, they
shared a common description of the culture of the school: risk taking, trial and error, organic
attempts, and similar phrases were used to describe how they integrated transformational
technology into their practice. The idea that this sort of work is “messy” and imperfect and
evolving is a unique part of the culture of School X. When asked what advice the Principal
would share with colleagues, he said, “I would say to tell [your teachers that] there is freedom,
tell them to explore and give them some time to explore.” Similarly, the advice that teachers at
School X would provide to novice teachers reflects a very strong culture of risk-taking. One of
the teachers said, “‘Oh, I’ll try that’ and not be afraid to get in and try it. . . . If you mess up with
it, you mess up with it, and you try again.” A colleague echoed her sentiment: “You can’t be
scared or nervous to use it. You just have to go for it and, if it bombs, it bombs and you don’t do
that again. You just have to try and see what works.” In an era of high-stakes testing and
accountability, this spirit of risk taking is significant.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 60
A Culture of Shared and Evolving Expertise
Along with a culture of autonomy and exploration, School X embodies a culture of
shared expertise. The idea of learning coaches is not unique to District X. This format is in place
in many schools and districts throughout the country. What is unique in District X and School X
is the evolution of shared expertise in 3 years of implementation. After the DLC worked with his
or her fellows for an instructional year, the relationship continued to influence instruction. As the
Assistant Superintendent explained, “We have two cohorts that meet now once a month to share
best practices with each other and that’s a way of keeping the fellows moving.” She explained,
“The coaching model is supposed to develop not only the fellows, but then have the fellows be
sharing at staff meetings and be part of the leadership for that school.” This is clearly the case at
School X.
Every teacher who was interviewed at School X talked about a culture of shared expertise
that was dynamic and evolving. The DLCs provided Tech Tuesday staff development last year, a
responsibility to be assumed by a tech Fellow this year. Teachers regularly share, formally and
informally. “We take time out in our professional learning communities to make sure that the
people on our team are comfortable with what they’re being asked to use.” A teacher mentioned,
“Because we have a districtwide technology push, everybody is using technology. . . . I get a lot
from what others are doing—not just teachers, but administrators and district personnel.”
One of the most notable aspects of School X’s culture of shared expertise is that it
definitely includes the students as experts. This was evident in observations and interviews. One
teacher shared, “All [the teachers] have to do is give the kids a little morsel and they’re going to
take it and run.” Another teacher explained that the students help to spread expertise from one
classroom to another. They teach one teacher an application or program that they learned in
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 61
another teacher’s class. Then the teacher knows where to go for support. That willingness to
allow students to direct and facilitate learning is advancing implementation of technology in
powerful ways. As one teacher shared, “Almost everything I know I’ve learned from kids,
really.” It is a strong component of the school culture that teachers are comfortable in learning
from students and allowing students to guide and support implementation of technology beyond
a teacher’s expertise. This is not surprising at School X, since the implementation of instructional
technology is student centered.
A Student-Centered Culture
In discussing the intent of the technology initiative in District X as a learning initiative,
the Assistant Superintendent made several references to a student-centered, student-driven
culture. “We have to differentiate. We have to provide a learning environment that really will
meet [every student’s] needs and we find that technology [supports] that.” She meets regularly
with the DLCs to ensure that the technology implementation supports the district’s three learning
goals. In talking about technology at School X, the Principal was quick to tie it to student
learning, emphasizing engagement, rigor, and relevance. This intentional focus on student
learning was echoed in the observations and interviews with teachers.
Several teachers mentioned the benefit of allowing students to demonstrate understanding
in a variety of student-chosen ways.
Some students love making videos . . . to show what they have learned. I have other
students who want to do artwork or a presentation or a virtual poster. I think having
technology in place for choice goes a long way.
In talking about the benefits to students, one teacher echoed the Principal: “I think it makes
learning relevant for the students.” A mathematics teacher described using a program in which
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 62
students collaborate to create problems that assess a particular concept. As they try out one
another’s problems, they collectively choose the best examples, which the application then uses
to create student-generated homework. “That is probably the most powerful for them because
they are doing their own problems [on the tablet].” In addressing the needs of her diverse
learners, another teacher discussed the ability to provide different resources based on student
need and interest: “They are able to take the learning and go as fast or as slow as they need to go
. . . being able to find different resources that meet their level is one way that tech helps.” This
idea of differentiation was echoed by colleagues and reflects a culture of student-focused
learning with the support of technology.
Conclusion
Based on analysis of data to address the research questions, it was clear that the
observations, interviews, surveys, and document review complemented the case study’s
developing description of School X. Upon further reflection, there were critical aspects of school
culture that supported the school’s ability to move toward transformational levels of technology
implementation: a culture of autonomy, risk taking, shared expertise, and student-centered
learning. It is clear from the survey data, observations, and interviews that technology is a
significant part of the instructional program at School X. The implementation includes examples
of transformational use that is supported by the school’s culture. Every person who was
interviewed acknowledged that achievement of this level of use required a significant investment
of time. Notably, everyone also stated emphatically that the investment of time was definitely
worth the payoff in student learning. The data collected at School X reflect a school and a district
that is managing a significant shift in teaching and learning with compelling results. There is
much to be learned from this school and district.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 63
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
As the bell rings in schools throughout the country tomorrow, students will be sitting in
desks, smart phones stowed away, following up on the teacher’s presentation of material by
quietly working on the day’s assignment from a textbook or worksheet in anticipation of the next
quiz or test. Although the world is changing at a rapid pace and there is a compelling need to
prepare students for a knowledge-based 21st-century work force, many classrooms look very
similar to classrooms from 2, 3, or even 4 decades ago. However, not all schools are doing things
the way they have always been done.
At School X, the bells that will ring tomorrow signify the chance to learn differently.
Equipped with an iPad, each student joins peers in anticipation of a day of technology-enhanced
learning. School X students will be called on to engage, instruct, respond, support, collaborate,
communicate, play, demonstrate, evaluate, think critically, and create. They can expect to be
actively engaged throughout the day and to use technology to support and demonstrate their
learning in ways that they could not do without technology. While the resources available to
teachers and students at School X are significant, it does not negate the transformational
practices documented during this research. Many schools and districts have high levels of
technology in place but teaching and learning remain largely unchanged. The results of this study
indicate that this not the case at School X. With the proliferation of instructional technology in
recent years, it is important to examine schools like School X that are leveraging resources to
have the greatest positive impact on student learning.
With the adoption of CCSS, nationwide computer-adaptive testing, and National
Technology Standards, the demand for transformative educational change has never been
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 64
greater. “There is a need to change our current paradigm of public education to one better suited
to the educational needs of the information age” (An & Reigeluth, 2011, p. 61).
Using the SAMR and TPACK frameworks to inform this work, a case study was
conducted to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively integrating and
implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. The study took place at a diverse middle
school that has implemented a 1:1 iPad program as part of a larger district initiative. The study
included formal and informal observations during several visits, interviews with administrators
and teachers, a survey completed by the instructional staff, and a document review. The study
described the dynamics of a school that utilized “transformational” technology practices as
defined by the SAMR model. “Technology integration-integrating technology into what is
already going on in classrooms-must be replaced by technology transformation-using technology
to transform what goes on in the classroom” (Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008, p. 46). This chapter
presents a discussion of the research findings and their implications for practice and future
research.
Discussion of Findings
This qualitative case study was designed to address four research questions related to the
use of instructional technology at “School X.”
1. How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
2. To what factors do educators at “School X” attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at “School X” provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 65
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
The collection of data related to these questions provided a better understanding of how
instructional technology has been utilized at School X. An analysis of the data revealed that
school culture was a part of every significant finding that emerged during data analysis. Somekh
(2008) identified five factors commonly found in schools that were successfully changing
teaching and learning with technology: sufficient resources, a learning focus rather than a
technology focus, staff development in an authentic context, a supportive environment, and the
ability to problem solve with peers and facilitators. Somekh pointed out that a significant
educational shift is complicated, since there are so many factors at play.
The focus and purposes of learning, teachers’ beliefs, classroom organization, tools used
by students and teachers, their roles and the rules governing their interactive performance
of pedagogy are all demonstrably inter-linked: changes in one mediate changes in all the
others. (p. 455)
This interconnectedness makes the culture of School X a significant factor in the change process
at that site. For teachers to take on the profound work of changing many aspects of their
instructional practice, the culture within which they operate becomes critical. Four specific
findings related to school culture were identified at School X.
The first finding is that, at School X, one size does not fit all. Throughout the case study,
it was clear that administrators had expectations for technology integration and were willing to
provide resources to support it. In addition to hardware and a robust infrastructure, they provided
DLCs who proved instrumental to the implementation. However, within this context of high
expectations for technology integration, there was a great deal of autonomy regarding how that
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 66
looked for each teacher and each department. In an interview, one of School X’s DLCs explained
that the work that he does with each teacher “Fellow” looks different because it is based on that
individual teacher’s goals. School X provides a variety of staff development opportunities that
reflect what Polly and Hannafin (2011) labeled learner-centered professional development. The
opposite of one-size-fits-all staff development, their framework for learner-centered professional
development includes six characteristics: student focused, reflective, teacher-owned, content and
theory laden, collaborative, and comprehensive (p. 122). The DLC model at School X reflects
this framework. Since it is based on the individual teacher’s student learning goals, there is a
strong sense of ownership. The DLCs are content area specialists: A mathematics teacher will be
assigned a mathematics DLC who has knowledge of content and pedagogy, along with expertise
in using technology in the subject area. The DLCs use a weekly cycle of co-planning, co-
teaching, and debriefing with their fellows. They also support staff development efforts such as
Tech Tuesdays and JOT (Just One Thing) training sessions.
Teachers reported having a great deal of freedom in how they use technology to support
student learning, as well as strong support in the form of resources, time, and training. However,
because they operate in a collaborative culture, it is not uncommon to see similar practices within
and across departments and grade levels. Teachers at School X are also encouraged to visit one
another’s classrooms to learn from peers who are exploring new ways of incorporating
technology. They are also given common planning days. During one of the visits, the
mathematics department was spending a release day in planning lessons utilizing a variety of
tools and applications to support student learning. The Principal shared that more than half of his
teachers had been or were currently Fellows working with a DLC, so there was a great deal of
expertise on site and a staff that was very willing to share.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 67
The second finding is that School X has a supportive culture that encourages risk taking
and exploration. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) suggested that one of the key factors in
changing teachers’ practices is the school or department’s culture. They explained that teachers’
self-efficacy affects their willingness to embrace change. Teachers’ fear that they may appear
inept or foolish can influence their willingness to innovate. “Administration can also encourage
teachers’ efforts by supporting experimentation” (p. 274). Every teacher who was interviewed at
School X mentioned that part of his or her learning involved exploration, using phrases such as
“trial and error,” “just trying it,” and “my curiosity” when asked about knowledge acquisition.
When asked about advice for novices, the same spirit of exploration and risk taking was echoed.
One teacher shared, “[Try] not to be afraid of it, take those risks. If you mess up with it, you
mess up with it and you try again.” Another teacher advised new teachers, “Take risks and just
try it.”
Leadership plays an important role in creating and nurturing the culture of a school. A
school culture that is conducive to exploration and experimentation is more likely to support
transformational technology practices. When teachers are modifying and redefining practices,
they need to feel that they can take risks. When asked to give advice to other administrators, the
Principal echoed the advice given by his teachers: “I would say to tell [your teachers] there is
freedom, tell them to explore and give them some time to explore.” Clearly, this spirit of
exploration and risk taking is shared by administration and teachers and aligns with the research
on the type of culture that supports innovation (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
The third finding is that there is a culture of shared and evolving expertise. If one were to
diagram the traditional hierarchy of education, it would likely include some rendition of a top-
down district-to-principal-to-teacher-to-student hierarchical structure for most mandates.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 68
However, at School X and in District X, the technology initiative has led to a nonlinear matrix of
shared expertise that is constantly evolving. The district may share something with the school, or
vice versa. Teachers share expertise with one another and with leadership. Students are often
involved in sharing information with and between teachers in ways that result in changes across
classrooms. The Assistant Superintendent noted that sometimes a groundswell of interest and use
of a particular application results in a migration of use to other school sites through the DLCs.
Each of the channels serves to convey successful practices across instructional spaces by every
level of the organization to every level of the organization, a matrix of positive shared expertise
rather than a top-down hierarchy. The result of this culture of shared expertise is that 100% of
the teachers surveyed at School X supported use of technology in the classroom.
Straub (2009) examined adoption and diffusion theory to explain how an innovation
spreads through an organization. “Technology adoption is a complex, inherently social,
developmental process” (p. 641). By allowing technology expertise to be shared vertically across
levels of the organization, as well as horizontally across classrooms and departments, the
“influence of peers, change agents, [and] organizational pressure” (p. 641) positively converge to
influence adoption and diffusion.
The fourth finding is that the culture at School X is student centered. When District X
passed a large bond to fund instructional technology, they launched a “learning initiative” rather
than a technology initiative. This focus on students and student learning was apparent in each of
the data sources for this study. Decisions about technology use stem from looking at what
instructional support students need. All of the responding teachers characterized their classrooms
as student centered and agreed that instructional technology has a positive impact on student
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 69
learning. Differentiation of learning was one of the tenets of student-centered instruction that was
documented in this study.
It is not surprising that teachers at School X viewed themselves as student centered and
that there was evidence of high levels of technology use, as these two concepts are often related.
According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013), “Teachers’ student-centered beliefs tend to
result in more authentic uses of technology” (p. 177). For School X, the use of instructional
technology is learning driven and student focused. The principal and teachers indicated that
decisions about technology implementation stem from goals for student learning. They are
against technology for technology’s sake but see technology as a valuable tool for student
engagement and learning. As the Principal shared,
As opposed to the old paradigm of one student raising their hand and answering a
question, now when the teacher asks a question to the classroom and all the students have
to go to their iPads and respond, it is pretty significant.
Implications for Practice
When asked whether technology was time consuming, every teacher responded
affirmatively but concluded that the initial investment of time was well worth the benefits for
teaching and learning. In analyzing the data and findings for School X, the following
implications for practice should be considered.
1. Student learning goals should drive decisions regarding technology implementation.
2. When expertise is shared across all levels of an organization, technology use spreads.
3. The use of a coach who provides individualized, content-specific, learner-centered
support over a school year can be an effective staff development model.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 70
4. Providing teachers with time to explore is part of a positive school culture that
encourages risk-taking and technology use.
Future Research
Although this case study focused on technology implementation at the school level, the
unique implementation model in this particular district warrants additional study. As mentioned
previously, this study was conducted as one of 10 thematic dissertation studies addressing the
same research questions and using the same tools. Three of the 10 studies were conducted in
District X, and a preliminary comparison of the data pointed to some interesting strands for
future research.
District X has employed a professional development model that largely relies on DLCs
and “Fellows” who apply to be coached for an academic year. This model had significant impact
at School X, providing customized training and support by a content area specialist who also had
technological and pedagogical knowledge. Additional research regarding this specific model on a
district level using the TPACK framework might provide further insight into the potential impact
of this staff development model.
In addition to the DLC model, a preliminary comparison of interview and observation
data at School X and the other two sites in this district suggests that the culture of risk taking
within a framework of support is present at multiple schools in the district. While data were
gathered from school and district leadership, leadership itself was not the focus of the study. It
would be valuable to examine the attributes of school and district leadership that contribute to
this type of culture across schools in the same district. Along with a more in-depth examination
of the impact of leadership on culture, another area for future research would be the SAMR
model of implementation.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 71
During her interview, the Assistant Superintendent made it clear that the technology
initiative in District X was, first and foremost, a learning initiative. She shared that the district
had trained site leaders in the SAMR model as a way to gauge transformative shifts in the use of
technology at the site level. It could prove beneficial to study a district that is using this specific
theoretical framework as a basis for its technology implementation. As part of that research, a
protocol tool to measure SAMR levels of implementation across classrooms and schools might
prove useful.
School X is in its third year of the implementation of 1:1 devices. It would be worthwhile
to conduct a follow-up study to compare the progress and follow current eighth-grade students as
they are the first cohort with 3 full years of 1:1 device use.
Conclusion
This is a dynamic time in education. Powerful technology has become a part of the
everyday world. In the 2010 draft of the National Technology Standards, the authors wrote,
We want to create inquisitive, creative, resourceful thinkers, informed citizens, effective
problem-solvers, groundbreaking pioneers and visionary leaders. . . . To accomplish this,
schools must be more than information factories; they must be incubators of exploration
and invention. (Atkins et al., 2010, p. 1)
At School X, this spirit of ‘exploration and invention” was evident in the data collected during
the case study.
As educators seek to prepare students for today’s global market place, students are
voicing their personal preferences. In their publication The New 3 E’s of Education: Enabled,
Engaged, Empowered, Project Tomorrow (2011) captured student sentiment:
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 72
Students have a very distinct vision of the power of socially-based, un-tethered and
digitally-rich learning to improve their academic performance and prepare them to
participate and compete in the global knowledge economy. And most importantly, the
students realize that to achieve this vision, technology must be more effectively used and
leveraged within learning. The students can, in fact, visualize their ultimate school where
they would have access to a rich and varied set of digital tools and resources that provide
gateways to new learning experiences not bound by their classroom walls. (p. 16)
Schools such as the one examined in this case study are moving closer to providing
students with this type of school, and educators can learn from School X’s journey as they seek
to replicate that learning environment elsewhere.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 73
REFERENCES
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Atkins, D. E., Bennett, J., Brown, J. S., Chopra, A., Dede, C., Fishman, B., & Williams, B.
(2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology (National
Educational Technology Plan 2010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Technology.
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure
preservice teachers; technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers.
Computers in the Schools, 25(1-2), 112-125.
ChanLin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55-65.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns (Vol. 98). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). The Common Core State Standards: Preparing
America’s students for success. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support
at-risk students’ learning. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education and
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 74
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 42, 255-284.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &
Education, 64, 175-182.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
& Education, 59, 423-435.
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 55, 223-252.
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A
case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 41, 179-200.
Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2004). Integrating technology in classrooms: We have met the
enemy and he is us. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and
future (pp. 137-144). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Kemp, S. (2000). Constructivism and problem-based learning. Retrieved from http://www
.tp.edu.sg/staticfiles/TP/files/centres/pbl/pbl_sandra_joy_kemp.pdf
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 75
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59, 1109-1121.
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417-
430.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs
regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 247-267.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Designing qualitative studies. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative research
and evaluation methods (pp. , 230-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development
influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. Journal of Educational Research,
104(2), 120-130.
Project Tomorrow. (2011). The new 3 E’s of education: Enabled, engaged and empowered—how
today’s educators are advancing a new vision for teaching and learning—Speak Up 2010
national findings: K–12 students and parents. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED536068)
Puentedura, R. (2014). SAMR in the classroom. Retrieved from http://cdno2.gettingsmart.com/
wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SAMR_model.png
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 76
Reigeluth, C. M., & Duffy, F. M. (2008). The AECT FutureMinds initiative: Transforming
America’s school systems. Educational Technology, 48(3), 45-63.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). (2015). Home page. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org
Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G.
Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and
secondary education (pp. 449-460). New York, NY: Springer.
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for
informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 625-649.
TPACK.org (2015). TPACK. Retrieved from from http://www.matt-koehler.com/tpack/wp-
content/uploads/TPACK-new.png
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by
technology. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Technology.
Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M. B., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing
technology-related teacher professional development designs: A multilevel study of
teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60,
421-444.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 77
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Research Questions Interview Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 78

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

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

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 79
APPENDIX B
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

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:
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 80

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 81
APPENDIX C
TEACHER TECHNOLOGY SURVEY
Integration of Instructional Technology

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

Student Learning 1
Rarely
or Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of
the Time
4
Almost
Always
My instruction involves use of
technology.

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

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

My lessons embed student use of
technology in the classroom.

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

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

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

I use technology to differentiate
instruction.

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 82

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
technology integration.

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

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

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

Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning.

Technology is an important part of
teaching and learning.

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

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES 83
APPENDIX D
DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL
RQ 1: How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
How are teachers using instructional
technology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
How are students using instructional
technology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics

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

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

RQ #4 - What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
“School X”?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Educators’ Beliefs School Plan
Lesson Plans

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the implementation of Common Core State Standards and computerized-adaptive state testing, there has been a focus on ensuring greater access to technology in K–12 classrooms across the United States. However, without a profound shift in instructional practices, these powerful technologies are largely underutilized. Many educators incorporate technology primarily as a productivity tool, without changing the way they teach. This case study investigated the dynamics of a public middle school that actively integrated and implemented technology in curriculum and instruction. The study addressed four research questions related to a selected case study school: (a) How do educators integrate technology to support students’ learning? (b) To what factors do educators attribute their knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool? (c) In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and implementation? and (d) What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation? Data were analyzed based on the substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR) model of technology implementation. The model considers the modification and redefinition levels of implementation to be transformational. Results indicated a prevalence of transformational practices at the case study school and that four themes were related to the culture in the school: (a) a one-size-does-not-fit-all attitude toward implementation, (b) support for exploration and risk taking, (c) shared and evolving expertise, and (d) a student-centered approach to teaching and learning. As educational leaders continue to make decisions about technology implementation, it is important that they examine successful models that support a change in teaching and learning as a result of transformational technology practices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration and innovation in teaching and learning: 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The role of student engagement in a certified Linked Learning school

PDF

A case study: a viable arts program at one elementary school in California

PDF

Outperformance in a nontraditional urban elementary school: a case study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Ervais, Margaret M. (author)

Core Title Transformational technology practices: a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/23/2016

Defense Date 02/08/2016

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

Tag K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,SAMR,Technology,transformational

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email ervais@usc.edu,megervais@cox.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-223216

Unique identifier UC11278416

Identifier etd-ErvaisMarg-4214.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-223216 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ErvaisMarg-4214.pdf

Dmrecord 223216

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ervais, Margaret 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